[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61101-61104]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21507]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0115]

Pipeline Safety: Inside Meters and Regulators

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to alert owners and
operators of natural gas distribution pipelines to the consequences of
failures of inside meters and regulators. PHMSA is also reminding
operators of existing Federal regulations covering the installation and
maintenance of inside meter and regulators, including the integrity
management regulations for distribution systems to reduce the risks
associated with failures of inside meter and regulator installations.

ADDRESSES: PHMSA guidance, including this advisory bulletin, can be
found on PHMSA's website at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/guidance. You may
also view this advisory bulletin and related documents at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Technical Questions: Michael Thompson, Transportation Specialist,
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    General Questions: Ashlin Bollacker, Technical Writer, by phone at
202-366-4203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 10, 2016, a natural gas-fueled explosion and fire caused
the partial collapse of a 14-unit apartment building located at 8701
Arliss Street (Building 8701) in the Flower Branch Apartment Complex of
Silver Spring, Maryland. The explosion and fire also heavily damaged an
adjacent apartment building, which shared a common wall with Building
8701. As a result of this accident, 7 residents died, 65 residents were
transported to the hospital, and 3 firefighters were treated and
released from the hospital. The property damage from the accident
exceeded $1 million.
    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the
probable cause of the explosion was the failure of an indoor mercury
service regulator with an unconnected vent line. The unconnected vent
line allowed natural gas to flow into the meter room, where the gas
accumulated and ignited from an unknown ignition source. A contributing
factor to the accident was the mercury service regulator being located
in a space where leak detection by odor was not readily available.
    A ``service regulator'' is defined in Sec.  192.3 as a ``device on
a service line that controls the pressure of gas delivered from a
higher pressure to the pressure provided to the customer. A service
regulator may serve one customer or multiple customers through a meter
header or manifold.'' Service regulators are installed to a meter inlet
to control the gas pressure into a building. They reduce the high
pressure used to transport natural gas through the delivery systems to
the lower pressures used in homes and businesses. Service regulators
include a relief valve that opens if the pressure of the regulated gas
exceeds a specified pressure to allow the excess gas to vent to the
outside atmosphere. Mercury service regulators present an increased
risk of failure due to their age.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The design of mercury service regulators includes materials
such as leather diaphragms and rubber valve seats that are subject
to age-related deterioration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Building 8701 received natural gas from a distribution system owned
and operated by Washington Gas Light Company (WGL). WGL delivers
natural gas to more than one million residential, commercial, and
industrial customers throughout Washington, DC, and the surrounding
regions in Maryland and Virginia. According to WGL, the mercury service
regulators installed in Building 8701 were also installed in all 26
buildings of the Flower Branch apartment complex between 1955 and 1956.
Since the accident, all of the mercury service regulators in the Flower
Branch apartment complex have been removed and replaced.

NTSB Accident Investigation Findings and Recommendations to PHMSA

    On April 24, 2019, NTSB adopted its report, ``Building Explosion
and Fire, Silver Spring, Maryland, August 10, 2016,'' \2\ determined
the probable cause of the explosion, and issued safety recommendations.
In its report, NTSB stated that several residents of Buildings 8701 and
8703 reported to investigators that they smelled gas in the weeks and
months leading up to the explosion. On July 25\,\ 2016, before the
accident, several residents called the building manager, 9-1-1, and
local fire personnel about gas odor. However, there was no evidence
that residents, building management, or any emergency personnel
notified the operator, WGL, of the gas odor. The investigation revealed
that, had anyone notified WGL of a gas odor call made two weeks
earlier, the accident may have been prevented. Notifying WGL would have
allowed a service technician to enter the meter room of the building,
identify the unconnected vent line, and remedy the situation. NTSB
noted, however, that the use of gas odorants alone does not
sufficiently mitigate the risk of death and injuries caused by gas
system leaks, such as the leak that occurred in this accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NTSB/PAR-19/01. The details of this accident investigation
and the resulting safety recommendations may be accessed at https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1901.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, NTSB determined that the probable cause of the
explosion was the failure of an indoor mercury service regulator with
an unconnected vent line. The unconnected vent line allowed natural gas
to flow into the meter room, where the gas accumulated and ignited from
an unknown ignition source. NTSB issued Safety Recommendations P-19-001
and P-19-002 to PHMSA based on the finding in the Silver Spring
investigation that, had service regulators been located outside
Building 8701, the explosion would have been avoided because gas would
have vented to the atmosphere and dissipated. In light of these
recommendations, PHMSA believes that operators should ensure compliance
with the applicable pipeline safety regulations and should evaluate
each service installation to determine the appropriate location of the
service regulators. If access is an issue to check and maintain inside
regulators properly, operators should do what is necessary to have the
customer provide access for the operator to check the regulator and
conduct the leakage and atmospheric corrosion surveys.

Minimum Federal Safety Standards for Customer Meters, Service
Regulators and Service Lines

    The Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations prescribe minimum safety
standards for customer meters, service regulators, and service lines.
They require operators to take into consideration the possibility of
corrosion, overpressure events, and physical damage in the design,
installation, and maintenance of these facilities. The Federal Pipeline
Safety Regulations at 49 CFR 192.353 require that each meter and
service regulator, whether inside or outside a building, must be
installed in a readily accessible location and be protected from
corrosion and other damage, including vehicular damage. For regulators
located inside a building, each service regulator must be located as
near as practical to the point of service line entrance. Each meter
must be located in a ventilated place and not less than 3 feet from any
source of ignition or any source of heat that might damage the meter.
Section 192.355(b) states: ``[s]ervice regulator vents and relief vents
must terminate outdoors, and the outdoor terminus must . . . [b]e
located at a place where gas from the vent can escape freely into the
atmosphere and away from any opening into the building.'' Section
192.357(d) requires regulators that might release gas to be vented to
the outside atmosphere.
    Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations include requirements that
operators conduct leakage surveys of their systems, including meter and
service regulators located inside buildings (Sec.  192.723). In
scheduling such surveys, operators must consider the nature of their
operations and the local conditions. At a minimum, operators must
conduct surveys: (1) In business districts at intervals not exceeding
15 months, but at least once each calendar year; and (2) outside
business districts as frequently as necessary, but at least once every
five calendar years at intervals not exceeding 63 months. The
regulations also require that operators inspect each pipeline or
portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of
atmospheric corrosion in accordance with Sec.  192.481. Further, if
atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the operator

must provide protection against the corrosion as required by Sec.
192.479.
    PHMSA is reminding operators of these existing requirements for
inside meters and regulators. This advisory bulletin notes that, if
access is an issue to check and maintain inside regulators properly,
operators should endeavor to have the customer provide access for the
operator to check the regulator and conduct the leakage and atmospheric
corrosion surveys.

Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) Regulations

    In addition to these requirements for inside meters and regulators,
PHMSA is also reminding operators of their obligation to continually
assess risks to their systems and address those risks in accordance
with DIMP regulations at Sec.  192.1007. A DIMP program requires that
operators demonstrate knowledge of their system (Sec.  192.1007(a)).
Additionally, a DIMP program requires that operators identify existing
and potential threats (Sec.  192.1007(b)). Identification of the
threats that affect, or could potentially affect, a distribution
pipeline is key to assuring its integrity. Knowledge of applicable
threats allows operators to evaluate the risks they pose and to rank
those risks, allowing safety resources to be applied where they will be
most effective. Section 192.1007(c) requires that an operator evaluate
the identified threats to determine their relative importance and rank
the risks associated with its pipeline. Operators must consider the
likelihood of threats as well as the consequences of a failure that
might result from each threat. The integrity management programs must
include measures designed and implemented to reduce the risk of failure
from identified threats (Sec.  192.1007(d)). Measuring performance
periodically and conducting a complete program re-evaluation at least
every five years allows operators to determine whether actions being
taken to address threats are effective, or whether different or
additional actions are needed (Sec.  192.1007(e)-(f)). An operator
should conduct a program evaluation any time there are changes in
factors that would affect the risk of failure.
    While the DIMP Regulations have been in place since 2009, some
operators may not be sufficiently aware of their pipeline attributes,
or may not be adequately or consistently assessing threats as part of
their DIMP programs. For example, NTSB found that WGL's inadequate
procedures led to the exclusion of the requirement that technicians
verify the connection of vent lines for indoor service regulators
during service and maintenance activities, and as such, vent lines
could be inadvertently left disconnected following service work. NTSB
concluded that WGL relied on unvalidated information to determine the
location and condition of mercury service regulators. Therefore, the
NTSB recommended that throughout the WGL network, WG implement an audit
program to verify the data on the service forms used to determine the
location and condition of mercury service regulators to ensure the
accuracy of this safety-critical data.
    Because it is so essential that operators identify the conditions
that can cause failures and address them before a failure can occur,
PHMSA is reminding operators of their obligations to comply with DIMP
regulations. This advisory bulletin serves as a reminder to operators
to identify and evaluate the physical and operational characteristics
of each pipeline system. Operators following these requirements should
help to ensure the safety of customer meters and regulators.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2020-01)

    To: Owners and Operators of Gas Distribution Systems.
    Subject: Requirements for Inside Meters and Regulators.
    Advisory: To further enhance PHMSA's safety efforts and implement
NTSB's April 24, 2019, Recommendations P-19-001 and P-19-002, PHMSA is
issuing this advisory bulletin to remind operators of the requirements
for inside meters and regulators. PHMSA is also reminding operators of
existing Federal DIMP regulations to reduce the possibility of the
failure of inside meter and regulator installations. Further, PHMSA
advises operators to review NTSB's report concerning the August 10,
2016, accident as it may serve as prudent guidance regarding potential
safety problems that operators may need to act on if it addresses a
relevant factor on their system. This advisory bulletin is intended to
clarify and describe the existing pipeline safety standards for
operators and the public. The contents of this advisory bulletin do not
have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public
in any way. However, pipeline operators must comply with the underlying
pipeline safety standards at 49 CFR part 192.
    PHMSA is reminding operators of Sec. Sec.  192.353, 192.355, and
192.357, which provide requirements regarding the location and safety
of customer meters and regulators. While the regulations allow service
regulators to be located inside or outside structures, the requirements
for indoor regulators are more stringent than those located outdoors.
Section 192.353(a) requires that each meter and service regulator,
whether inside or outside of a building, be installed in a readily
accessible location and be protected from corrosion and other damage,
including vehicular damage. Section 192.353(b) requires each service
regulator installed within a building to be located as near as
practical to the point of service line entrance, and Sec.  192.353(c)
requires that each meter installed within a building must be located in
a ventilated place and not less than 3 feet from any source of ignition
or any source of heat that might damage the meter. In addition, Sec.
192.355(b) requires that the service regulator vents and relief vents
must terminate outdoors, and the outdoor terminus must be located at a
place where gas from the vent can escape freely into the atmosphere and
away from any opening into the building. Section 192.357(d) requires
regulators that might release gas to be vented to the outside
atmosphere.
    The Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations include requirements that
operators conduct leakage and atmospheric corrosion surveys of their
systems, including service regulators located inside or outside a
building (Sec. Sec.  192.723 and 192.481). If access is an issue to
check and maintain inside meter and regulators properly, operators
should endeavor to have the customer provide access for the operator to
check these facilities and conduct the leakage and atmospheric
corrosion surveys.
    PHMSA is also reminding operators of their obligation to
continually assess risks to their systems and address those risks as
required by the DIMP regulations (Sec.  192.1007). PHMSA reminds
pipeline operators of their responsibilities to continuously improve
their knowledge of their pipeline systems, identify integrity threats,
evaluate and rank risks, and identify, evaluate, and implement
preventative and mitigative measures as required by the Federal
Pipeline Safety Regulations. PHMSA recommends that operators thoroughly
review their current DIMP for the threat of the failure of inside meter
and regulator installations and make any changes necessary to become
compliant with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. For example,
based on the requirements in Sec.  192.1007(a) for operators to know
their systems, PHMSA would expect operators to know the location
(inside or outside) of all meters and regulators installed on their
distribution system. Operators must evaluate the risks associated with
these facilities, determine the relative importance of each threat, and
rank the

risks posed to their pipeline (Sec.  192.1007(c)). PHMSA urges
operators to consider the points-of-failure identified in NTSB's
accident investigation report as they relate to operators' inside meter
and regulator installations and to adjust their DIMP accordingly. These
measures must include an effective leak management program unless all
leaks are repaired when found (Sec.  192.1007(d)). As part of their
leak management program, operators must consider all risks, including
the risk of failure or damage to inside meter and regulator
installations. If risks are identified, risk reduction measures must be
put in place to address them, or if additional actions have not been
taken to reduce risks, justification must be documented.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2020, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2020-21507 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14073-14075]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06824]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0735; FRL-9991-83-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules;
R307-101-3

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules (DAR),
specifically R307-101-3 submitted by the State of Utah on October 13,
2016. This submittal requests a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision to change the date of the referenced Code of Federal Register
(CFR) from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0735, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amrita Singh, Air Program, EPA, Region
8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303) 312-6103, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On October 13, 2016, the EPA received revisions for R307-101-3,
General Requirements; Version of Code of Federal Regulations
Incorporated by Reference from the State of Utah. Revisions submitted
for R307-101-3 updates the version of the 40 CFR used in a majority of
R307 rules adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board. This update allows
R307 rules that reference Section R307-101-3 to update the
incorporation date with only one rule amendment. States periodically
update their SIPs to incorporate by reference the most current 40 CFR
to correlate environmental regulations. This rule, as submitted by the
State, does not cover specific R307 rules that specify their own date
for the version of the CFR that are incorporated by reference. When the
State of Utah updates these specific R307 rules, the EPA will act on
them individually.
    We previously acted on R307-101-3 on January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4957),
as a final rule and received no comments. The final rule acted on the
State of Utah's August 29, 2014 submittal, which amended R307-101-3 to
include four chemical compounds on the list of compounds excluded from
the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC), as found in the EPA
rule at 40 CFR 51.100(s), on the basis that each of these compounds
make a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation.
    Additionally, within the October 13, 2016 submittal, the Utah
Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) submitted revisions to R307-210,
Stationary Sources, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
and R307-214, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. These rules have already been automatically delegated to
the State of Utah.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.epa.gov/region8/delegations-authority-nsps-and-neshap-standards-states-and-tribes-region-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses the EPA's rulemaking action on
SIP submissions by states. The CAA requires states to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
the EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision
be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a state to the EPA.
    The State of Utah's Department of Environmental Quality, Air
Quality Board proposed for public comment on Rule R307-101-3, General
Requirements; Version of Code of Federal Regulations Incorporated by
Reference on May 4, 2016. The comment period began on June 1, 2016 and
ended on July 1, 2016. No public comments were received nor was a
public hearing requested. The Utah Air Quality Board finalized R307-
101-3 on August 3, 2016, and the rule became effective on August 4,
2016. Subsequently, on October 13, 2016, Utah submitted a SIP revision
to R307-101-3, which updates the date of the referenced 40 CFR from
July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015. This update allows R307 rules that
reference Section R307-101-3 to update the incorporation date with only
one rule amendment.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision to R307-101-3,
General Requirements; Version of Code of Federal Regulations
Incorporated by Reference, where the version of the 40 CFR is being
changed from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015. The submittal was signed by
the Governor on August 17, 2016, and officially submitted by the State
on October 13, 2016.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the UDAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-
101-3 as discussed in section III of the preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the CAA; and
     Does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 2, 2019.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-06824 Filed 4-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54603-54605]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0745]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; IncreDoubleman Triathlon, Lake Ontario, Sackets
Harbor, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Sackets Harbor, Sackets Harbor, NY for a triathlon event. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to protect swimmers from vessels
operating in the area. This safety zone will restrict vessels from a
portion of Lake Ontario during the swimming portion of the
IncreDoubleman Triathlon event.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 6:45 a.m. until 9:30
a.m. on September 13 and 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0745]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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 rule,
call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section

A. Regulatory History and 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 because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 6:45 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on September 13 and 14, 2014, a
triathlon/swimming races will be held offshore of Sackets Harbor,
Sackets, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that large
scale swimming event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant
risk to participants and the boating public.

C. Discussion of Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and vessels during the
IncreDoubleman Triathlon event. This zone will be effective and
enforced from 6:45 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on September 13 and 14, 2014.
The zone will encompass waters of Lake Ontario near Sackets Harbor, NY.
Specifically, the safety zone will cover all waters of Lake Ontario
landward of a line connecting the following points: 43[deg]57'0.359'' N
and 76[deg]7'14.847'' W extending northeast to 43[deg]57'12.704'' N and
76[deg]7'2.644'' W and then extending east to 43[deg]57'11.037'' N and
76[deg]6'50.054'' W (NAD 83). The zone will include waters leading
into, and away from, any marinas located in close proximity to the race
area.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone will be
authorized on a case by case basis after contacting the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of
the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for a maximum of 5.5 hours. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. The
safety zone will allow vessels to transit through with approval from
the Coast Guard on-scene representative.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
a portion of Black River Bay in Sackets Harbor, NY on the mornings of
September 13 and 14. This safety zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons: This safety zone will allow for the passage of
vessels through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the
Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before
the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),

we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Section 165.T09-0745 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0745  Safety Zone; Incredoubleman Triathlon, Lake
Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY.

    (a) Location. This safety zone will cover all waters of Lake
Ontario landward of a line connecting the following points:
43[deg]57'0.359'' N and 76[deg]7'14.847'' W extending northeast to
43[deg]57'12.704'' N and 76[deg]7'2.644'' W and then extending east to
43[deg]57'11.037'' N and 76[deg]6'50.054'' W (NAD 83). This will
include waters leading into, and away from, any marinas located in
close proximity to the race area.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This section is effective and
will be enforced from 6:45 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. on September 13 and
September 14, 2014.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall

contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative
to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port
Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 17, 2014.
B.W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2014-21844 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37124-37126]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14501]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494, FRL-9802-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Heat
Smart Program and Enforcement Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to Oregon's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to the EPA by the State of Oregon
on October 5, 2011, June 8, 2012, and November 28, 2012. The submitted
revisions relate to Oregon's Heat Smart program, rules for enforcement
procedures and civil penalties, and contain minor revisions and
clarifications to general air pollution definitions, rules for
stationary source notification requirements, and requirements for fuel
burning. The EPA is approving these SIP revisions because the revisions
meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the
disclosure of which 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 through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that 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: Justin A. Spenillo at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 5, 2011, June 8, 2012, and November 28, 2012, the State
of Oregon submitted revisions to the EPA for approval into the Oregon
SIP. The submitted revisions relate to Oregon's Heat Smart program in
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 262 (OAR 340-
262), the enforcement procedures and civil penalties rules (OAR 340-
012), and contain minor revisions and clarifications to general air
pollution definitions (OAR 340-200), rules for stationary source
notification requirements (OAR 340-210), and requirements for fuel
burning (OAR 340-228). In a proposed rule published on February 11,
2013 (78 FR 9651), the EPA proposed to approve these revisions to the
Oregon SIP. An explanation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements and
implementing regulations related to these SIP revisions and the EPA's
reasons for approving the SIP revisions were provided in the notice of
proposed rulemaking on February 11, 2013, and will not be restated
here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on March
13, 2013.

II. Response to Comments

    The EPA received two comments on the proposed rule. The first
commenter requested clarification on the scope of the definition of
solid fuel burning devices at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>. Specifically, the
commenter requested and received confirmation from the EPA that
barbeques and campfires were not included in the definition of solid
fuel burning devices at OAR-340-262-0450. The second commenter
supported the approval of the Oregon Heat Smart program rules and their
contribution to reduced emissions and improved air quality. We agree
with this comment and no response was necessary. Both comments are
available in the docket.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the October 5, 2011, June 8, 2012, and
November 28, 2012 SIP submittals from the State of Oregon as meeting
the requirements of the CAA. Specifically, the EPA is approving
revisions to OAR 340-012, OAR 340-200, OAR 340-210, OAR 340-228 and OAR
340-262 because the revisions are consistent with CAA requirements. In
addition, the EPA approves the removal from the SIP of the regulations
previously codified at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> because the
citations for these regulations have been renumbered.
    With regard to OAR 340-012, the EPA is approving the revisions to
OAR 340-012, subject to the following qualifications. The EPA's
authority to approve SIP revisions extends to provisions related to
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and carrying out other specific
requirements of Section 110 of the CAA. Therefore, the EPA is approving
the revisions to OAR 340-012 only to the extent they relate to
enforcement of requirements contained in the Federally-approved Oregon
SIP. Additionally, the EPA is not incorporating these rules by
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations because the EPA relies
on its own independent enforcement procedures and penalty provisions in
bringing enforcement actions and assessing penalties under the CAA.
    The submittals contain an amendment to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, which
describes the State's procedures for adopting its Clean Air Act
Implementation Plan and references all of the state air regulations
that have been adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission for
approval into the SIP (as a matter of state law), whether or not they
have yet been submitted to or approved by the EPA. We are proposing no
action on the revisions to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> in the SIP submittal
because it is unnecessary to take action on a provision addressing
State SIP adoption procedures and because the Federally-approved SIP
consists only of regulations and other requirements that have been
submitted by ODEQ and approved by the EPA.

IV. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide the 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 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 the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 19, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 3, 2013.
 Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(139)(i)(D) and
(E), (c)(153)(i)(H) and (I), and (c)(157) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (139) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Based on a SIP revision submitted by Oregon on October 5, 2011,
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 262 ``Residential
Woodheating,'' as effective October 14, 1999, the following provisions
are removed from the SIP: 262-0010, 262-0020, 262-0030, 262-0040, 262-
0100, 262-0110, 262-0120, 262-0130, 262-0200, 262-0210, 262-0220, 262-
0230, 262-0240, 262-0250, 262-0300, 262-0310, 262-0320, 262-0330.
    (E) Based on a SIP revision submitted by Oregon on June 8, 2012,
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 210 ``Stationary
Source Notification Requirements,'' as effective October 8, 2002, the
following provisions are removed from the SIP and replaced by revised
provisions effective May 17, 2012: 210-0100, 210-0110, 210-0120, 210-
0250.
* * * * *
    (153) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (H) Based on a SIP revision submitted by Oregon on June 8, 2012,
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 200 ``General Air
Pollution Procedures and Definitions,'' the following provision 340-
200-0020, as effective May 1, 2011, is removed from the SIP and
replaced by revised provision<PHONE_NUMBER> as effective May 17, 2012.
    (I) Based on a SIP revision submitted by Oregon on June 8, 2012,
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 228 ``Requirements
for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content,'' the following
provisions 228-0020, 228-0200, 228-0210, as effective November 8, 2007,
are removed from the SIP and replaced by revised provisions 228-0020,
228-0200, 228-0210, as effective May 17, 2012.
* * * * *
    (157) On October 5, 2011, June 8, 2012, and November 28, 2012, the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality submitted revisions to the
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340 as revisions to the
Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submissions relate to
Oregon's Heat Smart program, enforcement procedures and civil
penalties, general air pollution definitions, rules for stationary
source notification requirements, and requirements for fuel burning.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) The following sections of the OAR Chapter 340, Division 262,
effective March 15, 2011: Division 262, Heat Smart Program for
Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices: Rule 0400
Purpose and Applicability of Rules; Rule 0500 Certification of Solid
Fuel Burning Devices for Sale as New; Rule 0700 Removal and Destruction
of Used Solid Fuel Burning Devices; Rule 0800 Wood Burning and Other
Heating Devices Curtailment Program; Rule 0900 Materials Prohibited
from Burning.
    (B) The following sections of the OAR Chapter 340, Division 262,
effective May 17, 2012: Division 262, Heat Smart Program for
Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices: Rule 0450
Definitions; Rule 0600 New and Used Solid Fuel Burning Devices Sold in
Oregon.
    (ii) Additional Material:
    (A) The following revised sections of Oregon Administrative Rules
Chapter 340, effective November 10, 2008: Division 12 Enforcement
Procedures and Civil Penalties: Rule 0030 Definitions, Rule 0038
Warning Letters, Pre-Enforcement Notices and Notices of Permit
Violation, Rule 0155 Additional or Alternate Civil Penalties, Rule 0170
Compromise or Settlement of Civil Penalty by Department.
    (B) The following revised sections of Oregon Administrative Rules
Chapter 340, effective March 15, 2011: Division 12 Enforcement
Procedures and Civil Penalties: Rule 0054 Air Quality Classifications
and Violations, Rule 0140 Determination of Base Penalty.

[FR Doc. 2013-14501 Filed 6-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 62439-62441]
[DOCID:fr08oc10-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63032; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-043]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Reinstitute
Short Exempt Marking for Trade Reporting and OATS

October 4, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On August 6, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA's trade reporting
and Order Audit Trail System (``OATS'') rules, including changes
relating to recent amendments to SEC Regulation SHO. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 26,
2010.\3\ The Commission received two comment letters on the
proposal,\4\ and a letter from FINRA responding to the comments.\5\
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62748 (Aug. 20,
2010), 75 FR 52574 (Aug. 26, 2010).
    \4\ See Letter from Mike Wiesenberg, dated September 8, 2010
(``Wiesenberg Letter''); Letter from Manisha Kimmel, Executive
Director, Financial Information Forum, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 17, 2010 (``FIF Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Brant K. Brown, Associate General Counsel,
FINRA to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September
28, 2010 (``FINRA Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    On February 26, 2010, the SEC adopted amendments to SEC Regulation
SHO.\6\ These amendments, among other

things, implement a short sale circuit breaker for NMS stocks \7\
triggered by a 10% or more decrease in the price of the security from
such security's closing price as determined by the listing market for
that security at the end of regular trading hours on the prior trading
day. Once the circuit breaker is triggered, Regulation SHO, as amended,
is designed to generally prohibit the execution or display of short
sale orders of a covered security at a price that is less than or equal
to the current national best bid for the remainder of the day and the
following day (``short sale price test restriction''). In addition to
the short sale price test restriction, the amendments to Regulation SHO
reinstitute a short sale exempt marking category by providing that a
broker-dealer may mark certain qualifying sell orders ``short exempt.''
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61595 (February 26,
2010), 75 FR 11232 (March 10, 2010).
    \7\ NMS stock means any NMS security other than an option. Rule
600(b)(46) of SEC Regulation NMS defines ``NMS security'' as any
security or class of securities for which transaction reports are
collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an effective
transaction reporting plan, or an effective national market system
plan for reporting transactions in listed options. See 17 CFR
242.600(b)(46).
    \8\ The Commission amended Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO to add
a ``short exempt'' marking requirement. The amendments to SEC
Regulation SHO became effective on May 10, 2010 with a compliance
date of November 10, 2010. See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 201 of SEC Regulation SHO set forth
the provisions pursuant to which an order may be marked ``short
exempt'' once the circuit breaker has been triggered pursuant to
paragraph (b)(3). These provisions include:
     Broker-dealer policies and procedures provision;
     Seller's delay in delivery;
     Odd lot transactions;
     Domestic arbitrage;
     International arbitrage;
     Over-allotments and lay-off sales;
     Riskless principal transactions; and
     Transactions on a volume-weighted average price basis (or
``VWAP'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ SEC staff has confirmed that members may use the existing
``.W'' modifier in connection with the VWAP exception of Rule
201(d)(7) of Regulation SHO. The use of the .W modifier would be in
addition to the requirement to report the trade as short exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the reinstitution of the ``short exempt'' marking
category, FINRA has proposed to amend its trade reporting rules
applicable to over-the-counter trades in NMS stocks to reintroduce the
short sale exempt category.\10\ Specifically, FINRA has proposed that,
for short sales in all NMS stocks as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of SEC
Regulation NMS, members must indicate on trade reports submitted to
FINRA if a transaction is ``short sale exempt'' (i.e., if it is a short
sale transaction in a ``covered security'' that may be marked ``short
exempt'' pursuant to SEC Regulation SHO).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Rules 6182 (Trade Reporting of Short Sales), 6282
(Alternative Display Facility), 6380A (FINRA/Nasdaq TRF), 6380B
(FINRA/NYSE TRF), 7230A (FINRA/Nasdaq TRF), and 7230B (FINRA/NYSE
TRF).
    \11\ FINRA previously required trade reports to indicate if a
transaction was marked ``short exempt''; however, these requirements
were eliminated following the repeal of SEC Rule 10a-1. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56279 (August 17, 2007), 72 FR
48713 (August 24, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-NASD-2007-047).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, FINRA has proposed to amend its OATS rules to provide
that, when an order is received or originated, members must record the
designation of an order as a short sale exempt order if the order may
be marked ``short exempt'' pursuant to SEC Regulation SHO.\12\ FINRA
also has proposed to require that members include the price on all
route reports and a short exempt identifier, if applicable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FINRA Rule 7440(b)(9).
    \13\ Whenever a member transmits an order to another member,
ECN, non-member or national securities exchange for handling or
execution, the routing member is responsible for recording and
reporting a route report to OATS. Under the proposal, route reports
would be required to include the price at which the order was
routed, which may be different from the price received from the
customer, and whether the routed order is short exempt. The short
exempt identifier is important for purposes of route reports because
certain short sale orders will be eligible to be marked exempt
solely as a result of the timing and price of the routed order (See
Rule 201(c) of SEC Regulation SHO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has proposed certain additional amendments to its trade
reporting rules, including those applicable to OTC Equity Securities,
as defined in Rule 6420 (i.e., non-NMS stocks) to clarify certain
existing reporting requirements.\14\ First, FINRA has proposed to
clarify that the short sale indicator (and short sale exempt indicator,
for NMS stocks) is required on reports of a ``cross,'' as well as
reports of a ``sell.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See FINRA Rules 6282, 6380A, 6380B, 6622, 7230A, 7230B and
7330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, FINRA has proposed to codify the existing requirement that
the information listed in the rule must be provided for each trade that
is reported to FINRA. Today, trade report information can be provided
in a single report, if the reporting member submits trade information
for both sides of the trade, or it can be provided in a combination of
reports, if the reporting member and contra side each submit their own
trade information (as described more fully below), which will be
codified in the rule upon implementation of the proposed changes. For
each trade reported to FINRA, members must indicate, among other
things, whether the seller (either the reporting member or contra side,
irrespective of whether the contra side is a member) is selling short
or, upon implementation of the proposed changes, short exempt.
    Unless the contra side will have an opportunity to provide its own
trade information (i.e., unless the contra side is a member using the
trade comparison functionality of the facility),\15\ the reporting
member is responsible for providing complete and accurate information
for both sides of the trade, including information from the contra side
perspective such as sell short and, upon implementation of the proposed
changes, sell short exempt, as applicable. Thus, the reporting member
is responsible for satisfying any applicable contra side information
requirements where: (1) The trade is with a customer or non-member, (2)
the trade is with a member and is ``locked in'' pursuant to a give up
agreement, or (3) the trade is reported as ``tape only'' (i.e., for
public dissemination purposes without clearing) or ``non-tape, non-
clearing.'' This reporting requirement is in effect today; however, the
proposed rule change would make it an express requirement in the rule.
If the contra side is a member and will have an opportunity to provide
its own trade information, then the reporting member is responsible
only for providing information from the reporting side perspective (and
the contra side will provide information from the contra side
perspective).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The trade comparison functionality allows the contra party
to accept or decline the trade information submitted by the
reporting party and may only be used by a contra party that is a
member. FINRA notes that the Alternative Display Facility, FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF and ORF offer trade comparison functionality; the FINRA/
NYSE TRF does not offer such functionality. Accordingly, reporting
members are responsible for accurately and completely providing all
information required under the rule for the contra side when
reporting to the FINRA/NYSE TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has stated that the implementation date will be November 10,
2010.

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received two comment letters in response to the
proposed rule change.\16\ The Commission also received FINRA's response
to comments.\17\ The comment letters, as well as FINRA's response, are
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Wiesenberg Letter and FIF Letter.
    \17\ See FINRA Response Letter. See also supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FIF Letter raises a number of concerns regarding the proposal.

Specifically, the FIF Letter raises concerns regarding the November 10,
2010 implementation date for the proposed rule changes given other
regulatory initiatives with similar implementation timeframes. In
response to these concerns, FINRA points out that the proposed
amendments are to facilitate its surveillance efforts concerning firms'
compliance with amendments to Regulation SHO, which becomes effective
November 10, 2010. FINRA believes that it is necessary that the
implementation date of the proposed amendments coincide with the
implementation date of the amendments to Regulation SHO.
    The FIF Letter also raises concerns with the amount of time allowed
for testing prior to implementation of the proposed amendments. In
response, FINRA has represented that it has moved up the testing
timetable to allow firms to begin testing on October 11th, rather than
on October 20th as initially proposed.
    The FIF Letter expresses concerns regarding the complexity of the
proposed changes and cites the creation of certain route reports for
post trade agency allocation as an example of such complexity. FINRA
explains that the requirement to provide the price of a routed order on
route reports does not change any of the reporting requirements for
orders handled on an agency average price or post trade allocation
basis. FINRA also states that it has published a new FAQ on its OATS
Web site on this issue.
    Lastly, the FIF Letter indicates that there may be confusion
regarding the proposed November 10th implementation date of the
proposed rule change and the November 8th date when the changes will be
available in the OATS production environment.\18\ FINRA clarifies that
although the OATS field format changes will be placed in the production
environment on November 8th, they will not be required to be populated
until the proposed November 10th implementation date of the proposed
rule change. FINRA also states that it has published a new FAQ on its
OATS Web site to this effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The FIF Letter also raises concerns regarding the ISO
Indicator on route reports. FINRA notes that firms are already
required to indicate on route reports whether an order is routed as
an Intermarket Sweep Order. FINRA also points out that the ISO
indicator is not one of the proposed amendments in the proposed rule
change and therefore should not affect the Commission's
consideration of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Wiesenberg Letter raises an issue, not with respect to one of
the proposed amendments in the proposed rule change, rather with
respect to one of the proposed requirements in FINRA's OATS Reporting
Technical Specifications \19\ related to the proposed rule change, the
addition of the Routed Order Type Indicator. The commenter believes
that the proposed requirement ``can be determined from [other OATS]
information supplied'' by the reporting member, ``serve[s] no purpose''
and ``provides no useful additional information.'' \20\ The commenter
also generally questions whether such requirement is consistent with
the Act and urges FINRA to reconsider the proposed requirement in
FINRA's OATS Reporting Technical Specifications and re-file the
proposed rule change \21\ or, in the alternative, that the Commission
reject the proposal. FINRA disagrees with the commenter and responds
that the Routed Order Type Indicator ``helps FINRA to validate whether
a price must be included on a Route Report, particularly since the
order type of a route may not be the same as the order type of the
parent order received from the firm.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FINRA's OATS Reporting Technical Specifications outline
detailed reporting requirements concerning the OATS rules,
including, among other things, providing firms with record and file
formats and transmission requirements.
    \20\ See Wiesenberg Letter.
    \21\ The commenter's suggestion that FINRA re-file the proposed
rule change would not address the addition of the Routed Order Type
Indicator, as such requirement is contained in FINRA's OATS
Reporting Technical Specifications, not the proposed rule change.
    \22\ See FINRA Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment
letters received and the FINRA Response Letter, the Commission believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable
to a national securities association.\23\ In particular, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, in that it is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the comments received, the Commission believes that
FINRA has adequately responded to the commenters' concerns.
Additionally, the Commission agrees with FINRA and believes that the
proposed rule change to amend FINRA's trade reporting and OATS rules,
including changes relating to recent amendments to SEC Regulation SHO,
will enhance FINRA's surveillance for member compliance, including with
SEC Regulation SHO.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FINRA-2010-043) be
and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25331 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32600-32601]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirty Third RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Thirty Third RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Thirty Third RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security
Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 24-28, 2017, 09:00 a.m.-05:00 p.m.
All times are Central European Summer Time (UTC+2).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: Airbus Training Center, Hein-
Sa[szlig]-Weg 31, 21129 Hamburg (Finkenwerder), Germany.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karan Hofmann at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
202-330-0680, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910,
Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at (202)
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Note: Registration is
required for building admittance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Thirty Third RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical
Systems Security Plenary. The agenda will include the following:

Monday, July 24, 2017--9:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome and Administrative Remarks
2. Introductions
3. Agenda Review
4. Meeting--Minutes Review
5. Review Joint Action List
6. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Sessions

Tuesday, July 25, 2017--9:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.

7. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Sessions

Wednesday, July 26, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

8. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Sessions

Thursday, July 27, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

9. Review DO-356A/ED-203A for Final Review and Comment (FRAC)/Open
Consultation

Friday, July 28, 2017--9:00 a.m.- 12:00 p.m.

10. Schedule Update
11. Decision To Approve Release of DO-356A/ED-203A for FRAC/Open
Consultation
12. Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting
13. New Business
14. Adjourn Plenary

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman,

members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting.
Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-14798 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P