[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5148-5151]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02168]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Advisers Act Release No. 4850; File No. 803-00243]

Janney Montgomery Scott LLC; Notice of Application

January 30, 2018.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice of application for an exemptive order under section
206A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'')
providing an exemption from the written disclosure and consent
requirements of section 206(3).

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

Applicant:  Janney Montgomery Scott LLC (``Applicant'').

Relevant Advisers Act Sections:  Exemption requested under section 206A
from the written disclosure and consent requirements of section 206(3).

Summary of Application:  The Applicant requests that the Commission
issue an order under section 206A exempting it and Future Advisers (as
defined below) from the written disclosure and consent requirements of
section 206(3) with respect to principal transactions with
nondiscretionary advisory client accounts.

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on November 22, 2017.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving the Applicant with a copy of the request,
personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the
Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 26, 2018, and should be accompanied
by proof of service on the Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or,
for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the
Advisers Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the
matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant, c/o Laura E. Flores
and Monica L. Parry, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6915, or Robert Shapiro, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Applicant seeks relief from the written disclosure and consent

requirements of section 206(3) of the Advisers Act that would be
similar to relief provided by Advisers Act rule 206(3)-3T (the
``Rule''), which expired by its terms on December 31, 2016. The relief
sought by the Applicant, if granted, would be subject to conditions
similar to those under the Rule, as well as certain revised or
additional conditions.

Applicant's Representations

    1. The Applicant is registered as an investment adviser with the
Commission and is a registered broker-dealer. The Applicant offers the
Partners Advisory Program (the ``Program''), a nondiscretionary
advisory program.
    2. The Applicant established the Program in 1999. Prior to December
31, 2016, the Applicant relied on the Rule to engage in principal
transactions with its clients in the Program.
    3. As of December 31, 2016, the Applicant had a total of 23,428
client accounts enrolled in the Program with aggregate assets of
$7,318,704,000. On the same date, 1,491 client accounts had consented
to principal transactions in their Program accounts in reliance on the
Rule. In 2016, 4,527 trades were effected in reliance on the Rule in
the Program. Approximately 90 percent of the trades done in reliance on
the Rule in this period were purchases by client accounts; the average
purchase was approximately $29,228. Approximately 10 percent of the
trades done in reliance on the Rule in this period were sales from
client accounts; the average sale was approximately $30,011.
    4. The Applicant acknowledges that the Order, if granted, would not
be construed as relieving in any way the Applicant from acting in the
best interests of an advisory client, including fulfilling the duty to
seek the best execution for the particular transaction for the advisory
client; nor shall it relieve the Applicant from any obligation that may
be imposed by sections 206(1) or (2) of the Advisers Act or by other
applicable provisions of the federal securities laws or applicable
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') rules.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Section 206(3) provides that it is unlawful for any investment
adviser, directly or indirectly, acting as principal for its own
account, knowingly to sell any security to or purchase any security
from a client, without disclosing to the client in writing before the
completion of the transaction the capacity in which the adviser is
acting and obtaining the client's consent to the transaction. The Rule
deemed an investment adviser to be in compliance with the provisions of
section 206(3) of the Advisers Act when the investment adviser, or a
person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the
investment adviser, acting as principal for its own account, sold to or
purchased from an advisory client any security, provided that the
investment adviser complied with the conditions of the Rule.
    2. The Rule required, among other things, that the investment
adviser obtain a client's written, revocable consent prospectively
authorizing the adviser, directly or indirectly, acting as principal
for its own account, to sell any security to or purchase any security
from the client. The consent was required to be obtained after the
adviser provided the client with written disclosure about: (i) The
circumstances under which the investment adviser may engage in
principal transactions with the client; (ii) the nature and
significance of the conflicts the investment adviser has with its
client's interests as a result of those transactions; and (iii) how the
investment adviser addresses those conflicts. The investment adviser
also was required to provide trade-by-trade disclosure to the client,
before the execution of each principal transaction, of the capacity in
which the adviser may act with respect to the transaction, and obtain
the client's consent (which may be written or oral) to the transaction.
The Rule was available only to an investment adviser that was also a
broker-dealer registered under section 15 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and could only be relied upon with
respect to a nondiscretionary account that was a brokerage account
subject to the Exchange Act, and the rules thereunder, and the rules of
the self-regulatory organization(s) of which it is a member. The Rule
was not available for principal transactions if the investment adviser
or a person who controlled, was controlled by, or was under common
control with the adviser (``control person'') was the issuer or an
underwriter of the security (except that an investment adviser could
rely on the Rule for trades in which the investment adviser or a
control person was an underwriter of non-convertible investment-grade
debt securities).
    3. The Rule also required the investment adviser to provide to the
client a trade confirmation that, in addition to the requirements of
rule 10b-10 under the Exchange Act, included a conspicuous, plain
English statement informing the client that the investment adviser
disclosed to the client before the execution of the transaction that
the investment adviser may act as principal in connection with the
transaction, that the client authorized the transaction, and that the
investment adviser sold the security to or bought the security from the
client for its own account. The investment adviser also was required to
deliver to the client, at least annually, a written statement listing
all transactions that were executed in the account in reliance on the
Rule, including the date and price of each transaction.
    4. The Rule expired on December 31, 2016. Absent the requested
relief, the Applicant would be required to provide trade-by-trade
written disclosure to each nondiscretionary advisory client with whom
the Applicant sought to engage in a principal transaction in accordance
with section 206(3). The Applicant submits that its nondiscretionary
clients have had access to the Applicant's inventory through principal
transactions with the Applicant for a number of years, and expect to
continue to have such access in the future. The Applicant believes that
engaging in principal transactions with its clients provides certain
benefits to its clients, including access to securities of limited
availability, such as municipal bonds, and that the written disclosure
and client consent requirements of section 206(3) act as an operational
barrier to its ability to engage in principal trades with its clients,
especially when the transaction involves securities of limited
availability.
    5. Unless the Applicant is provided an exemption from the written
disclosure and client consent requirements of section 206(3), the
Applicant believes that it will be unable to provide the same range of
services and access to the same types of securities to its
nondiscretionary advisory clients as it was able to provide to its
clients under the Rule.
    6. The Applicant notes that, if the requested relief is granted, it
will remain subject to the fiduciary duties that are generally
enforceable under sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act,
which, in general terms, require the Applicant to: (i) Disclose
material facts about the advisory relationship to its clients; (ii)
treat each client fairly; and (iii) act only in the best interests of
its client, disclosing conflicts of interest when present and obtaining
client consent to arrangements that present such conflicts.
    7. The Applicant further notes that, in its capacity as a broker-
dealer with respect to these accounts, it will remain subject to a
comprehensive set of Commission and FINRA regulations that apply to the
relationship between a broker-dealer and its customer in

addition to the fiduciary duties an adviser owes a client. These rules
require, among other things, that the Applicant deal fairly with its
customers, seek to obtain best execution of customer orders, and make
only suitable recommendations. These obligations are designed to
promote business conduct that protects customers from abusive practices
that may not necessarily be fraudulent, and to protect against unfair
prices and excessive commissions. Specifically, these provisions, among
other things, require that the prices charged by the Applicant be
reasonably related to the prevailing market, and limit the commissions
and mark-ups the Applicant can charge. Additionally, these obligations
require that the Applicant have a reasonable basis to believe that a
recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or
securities is suitable for the customer, based on information obtained
through reasonable diligence.
    8. The Applicant requests that the Commission issue an Order
pursuant to section 206A exempting it from the written disclosure and
consent requirements of section 206(3) only with respect to client
accounts in the Program and any similar nondiscretionary program to be
created in the future. The Applicant also requests that the
Commission's Order apply to future investment advisers controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with the Applicant (``Future
Advisers''). Any Future Adviser relying on any Order granted pursuant
to the application will comply with the terms and conditions stated in
the application.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All entities that currently intend to rely on any order
granted pursuant to the application are named as Applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicant's Conditions

    The Applicant agrees that any Order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Applicant will exercise no ``investment discretion'' (as
such term is defined in section 3(a)(35) of the Exchange Act), except
investment discretion granted by the advisory client on a temporary or
limited basis,\2\ with respect to the client's account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Discretion is considered to be temporary or limited for
purposes of this condition when the investment adviser is given
discretion: (i) As to the price at which or the time to execute an
order given by a client for the purchase or sale of a definite
amount or quantity of a specified security; (ii) on an isolated or
infrequent basis, to purchase or sell a security or type of security
when a client is unavailable for a limited period of time not to
exceed a few months; (iii) as to cash management, such as to
exchange a position in a money market fund for another money market
fund or cash equivalent; (iv) to purchase or sell securities to
satisfy margin requirements; (v) to sell specific bonds and purchase
similar bonds in order to permit a client to take a tax loss on the
original position; (vi) to purchase a bond with a specified credit
rating and maturity; and (vii) to purchase or sell a security or
type of security limited by specific parameters established by the
client. See, e.g., Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades with
Certain Advisory Clients, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2653
(Sept. 24, 2007) at n. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Applicant will not trade in reliance on this Order any
security for which the Applicant or any person controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with the Applicant is the issuer, or, at
the time of the sale, an underwriter (as defined in section 202(a)(20)
of the Advisers Act).
    3. The Applicant will not directly or indirectly require the client
to consent to principal trading as a condition to opening or
maintaining an account with the Applicant.
    4. The advisory client has executed a written revocable consent
prospectively authorizing the Applicant directly or indirectly to act
as principal for its own account in selling any security to or
purchasing any security from the advisory client. The advisory client's
written consent must be obtained through a signature or other positive
manifestation of consent that is separate from or in addition to the
signature indicating the client's consent to the advisory agreement.
The separate or additional signature line or alternative means of
expressing consent must be preceded immediately by prominent, plain
English disclosure containing either: (a) An explanation of: (i) The
circumstances under which the Applicant directly or indirectly may
engage in principal transactions; (ii) the nature and significance of
conflicts with its client's interests as a result of the transactions;
and (iii) how the Applicant addresses those conflicts; or (b) a
statement explaining that the client is consenting to principal
transactions, followed by a cross-reference to a specific document
provided to the client containing the disclosure in (a)(i)-(iii) above
and to the specific page or pages on which such disclosure is located;
provided, however, that if the Applicant requires time to modify its
electronic systems to provide the specific page cross-reference
required by clause (b), the Applicant may, while updating such
electronic systems, and for no more than 90 days from the date of the
Order, instead provide a cross-reference to a specific document
provided to the client containing the disclosure in (a)(i)-(iii) above
and to the specific section in such document in which such disclosure
is located.
    Transition provision: To the extent that the Applicant obtained
fully informed written revocable consent from an advisory client for
purposes of rule 206(3)-3T(a)(3) prior to January 1, 2017, the
Applicant may rely on this Order with respect to such client without
obtaining additional prospective consent from such client.
    5. The Applicant, prior to the execution of each transaction in
reliance on this Order, will: (a) Inform the advisory client, orally or
in writing, of the capacity in which it may act with respect to such
transaction; and (b) obtain consent from the advisory client, orally or
in writing, to act as principal for its own account with respect to
such transaction.
    6. The Applicant will send a written confirmation at or before
completion of each such transaction that includes, in addition to the
information required by rule 10b-10 under the Exchange Act, a
conspicuous, plain English statement informing the advisory client that
the Applicant: (a) Disclosed to the client prior to the execution of
the transaction that the Applicant may be acting in a principal
capacity in connection with the transaction and the client authorized
the transaction; and (b) sold the security to, or bought the security
from, the client for its own account.
    7. The Applicant will send to the client, no less frequently than
annually, written disclosure containing a list of all transactions that
were executed in the client's account in reliance upon this Order, and
the date and price of each such transaction.
    8. The Applicant is a broker-dealer registered under section 15 of
the Exchange Act and each account for which the Applicant relies on
this Order is a brokerage account subject to the Exchange Act, and the
rules thereunder, and the rules of the self-regulatory organization(s)
of which it is a member.
    9. Each written disclosure required as a condition to this Order
will include a conspicuous, plain English statement that the client may
revoke the written consent referred to in Condition 4 above without
penalty at any time by written notice to the Applicant in accordance
with reasonable procedures established by the Applicant, but in all
cases such revocation must be given effect within 5 business days of
the Applicant's receipt thereof.
    10. The Applicant will maintain records sufficient to enable
verification of compliance with the conditions of this Order. Such
records will include, without limitation: (a) Documentation sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with each disclosure and consent requirement
under this Order; (b) in particular, documentation sufficient to
demonstrate that, prior to the execution

of each transaction in reliance on this Order, the Applicant informed
the relevant advisory client of the capacity in which the Applicant may
act with respect to the transaction and that it received the advisory
client's consent (if the Applicant informs the client orally of the
capacity in which it may act with respect to such transaction or
obtains oral consent, such records may, for example, include recordings
of telephone conversations or contemporaneous written notations); and
(c) documentation sufficient to enable assessment of compliance by the
Applicant with sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act in
connection with its reliance on this Order.\3\ In each case, such
records will be maintained and preserved in an easily accessible place
for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in an
appropriate office of the Applicant, and be available for inspection by
the staff of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, under sections 206(1) and (2), an investment
adviser may not engage in any transaction on a principal basis with
a client that is not consistent with the best interests of the
client or that subrogates the client's interests to the interests of
the investment adviser. Cf. Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2106
(Jan. 31, 2003) (adopting Rule 206(4)-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. The Applicant will adopt written compliance policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure, and the Applicant's chief
compliance officer will monitor, the Applicant's compliance with the
conditions of this Order. The Applicant's chief compliance officer
will, on at least a quarterly basis, conduct testing reasonably
sufficient to verify such compliance. Such written policies and
procedures, monitoring and testing will address, without limitation:
(a) Compliance by the Applicant with its disclosure and consent
requirements under this Order; (b) the integrity and operation of
electronic systems employed by the Applicant in connection with its
reliance on this Order; (c) compliance by the Applicant with its
recordkeeping obligations under this Order; and (d) whether there is
any evidence of the Applicant engaging in ``dumping'' in connection
with its reliance on this Order.\4\ The Applicant's chief compliance
officer will document the frequency and results of such monitoring and
testing, and the Applicant will maintain and preserve such
documentation in an easily accessible place for a period of not less
than five years, the first two years in an appropriate office of the
Applicant, and be available for inspection by the staff of the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Investment Trusts and Investment Companies, H.R. Doc. No. 279, 76th
Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 3, at 2581, 2589 (1939); Hearings on S. 3580
Before a Subcommittee of the Commission on Banking and Currency,
76th Cong., 3d Sess. 209, 212-23 (1940); Hearings on S. 3580 Before
the Subcomm. of the Comm. on Banking and Currency, 76th Cong., 3d
Sess. 322 (1940).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02168 Filed 2-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14321-14324]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5784]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0041]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Myrtle Beach Triathlon, Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, Myrtle Beach, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
during the Myrtle Beach Triathlon. The Myrtle Beach Triathlon, which is
comprised of a series of triathlon races, is scheduled to take place on
Saturday, October 13, 2012. The temporary safety zone is necessary for
the safety of race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and
the general public during the swim portions of the triathlon races.
Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering, transiting
through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 15, 2012. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before May 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0041 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ensign John R. Santorum, Sector Charleston Office
of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0041), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2012-0041'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0041'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
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. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before May 20, 2012 using one of the four methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's
authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited
access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
    The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure the safety of race
participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public
during the swim portion of the triathlon races.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On October 13, 2012, the Myrtle Beach Triathlon will be held in
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. This event will be comprised of a series
of triathlon races. Approximately 1,200 individuals are scheduled to
compete in the event.
    The proposed rule would establish a temporary safety zone around
the swim area of the Myrtle Beach Triathlon on the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The temporary
safety zone would be enforced from 6 a.m. until 11:59 a.m. on October
13, 2012. Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative. Persons and vessels would be able to request
authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is
granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
would be required to comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard would
provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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

    Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This proposed rule has not been designated a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this
proposed rule under Executive Order 12866.
    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for
the following reasons: (1) The safety zone would be enforced for less
than six hours; (2) the safety zone would encompass only a small
portion of the navigable waterway; (3) although persons and vessels
would not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative, they would be able to
operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4)
persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the
Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (5)
the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zone
to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators
of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain
within that portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed
within the safety zone from 6 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. on October 13, 2012.
For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section
above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Ensign John R.
Santorum, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone as described in
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, that will be
enforced for less than six hours. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed 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 proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

    2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0041 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0041  Safety Zone; Myrtle Beach Triathlon, Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, Myrtle Beach, SC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated area is a safety zone.
All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within an
imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in
position 33[deg]45'35'' N, 78[deg]49'42'' W; thence southeast to Point
2 in position 33[deg]45'31'' N, 78[deg]49'39'' W; thence northeast to
Point 3 in position 33[deg]45'57'' N, 78[deg]48'57'' W; thence
northeast to Point 4 in position 33[deg]46'00'' N, 78[deg]48'57'' W;
thence southwest back to origin. All coordinates are North American
Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective Date. This rule is effective from 6 a.m. until 11:59
a.m. on October 13, 2012.

    Dated: February 28, 2012.
M.F. White,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2012-5784 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 71673]
[DOCID:fr18de07-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-521-000]

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Designation
of Certain Commission Personnel as Non-Decisional

December 11, 2007.
    Commission staff member Dr. Harry Singh (Office of Energy Markets
Regulation;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>is assigned to help
resolve issues concerning the New York Independent System Operator,
Inc.'s (NYISO) proposal for Long-term Firm Transmission Rights (LTTRs),
which NYISO submitted in compliance with the Commission's LTTR Final
Rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity
Markets, Order No. 681, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]31,226 (August 1,
2006), order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 681-A, 117 FERC
]61,201 (November 16, 2006) (together, LTTR Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As ``non-decisional'' staff, Dr. Singh will not participate in an
advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any offer of settlement
or settlement agreement or in deliberations concerning the disposition
of the NYISO proposal or the order ruling on that proposal.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24417 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48715-48716]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20446]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0608; FRL-9983-40--Region 8]

Adequacy Determination for the Missoula PM10 Limited Maintenance
Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes; State of Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Adequacy determination.

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

SUMMARY: In this announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is notifying the public that the EPA has found the Missoula
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
As more fully explained in the Supplementary Information section of
this notice, this finding will affect future transportation conformity
determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective on October 12, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303)
312-6479, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act to ensure that federally funded highway and transit
projects are consistent with the air quality goals established by the
state implementation plan (SIP). The EPA's conformity rule provisions
at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, establish the criteria and procedures for
determining whether transportation plans, programs and projects conform
to the SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the applicable NAAQS. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The applicable PM10 NAAQS is found in 40 CFR part
50, section 50.6: ``The level of the national primary and secondary
24-hour ambient air quality standards for particulate matter is 150
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), 24-hour average
concentration. The standards are attained when the expected number
of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above
150 [micro]g/m\3\, as determined in accordance with appendix K to
this part, is equal to or less than one.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The criteria by which the EPA determines whether a SIP revision's
LMP \2\ or motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes are outlined at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4),
and the adequacy review process is described at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). We
applied these criteria and followed this process in making the
determinations announced in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On August 9, 2001, EPA issued a guidance memorandum titled
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10
Nonattainment Areas.'' https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document is simply an announcement of findings that the EPA
has already made, as described below.
    The State of Montana submitted the Missoula PM10 LMP \3\
on August 1, 2016. As part of our adequacy review, we announced receipt
of the Missoula PM10 LMP and posted an announcement of
availability on the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality's
transportation conformity website https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/adequacy-review-state-implementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity. The EPA requested public comments by May 30,
2018. We did not receive any comments. We sent a letter to the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality on July 23, 2018, that stated that
the submitted Missoula PM10 LMP was adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in
diameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the effective date listed in the DATES section of this
notice, the Missoula County-City Metropolitan Planning Organization,
the Montana

Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Transportation
are required to use the provisions of the Missoula PM10 LMP
for future transportation conformity determinations for projects in the
Missoula PM10 nonattainment area. Please refer to 40 CFR
81.327 for a description of the nonattainment area boundary. On the
effective date of this adequacy determination, the previously-approved
PM10 MVEB of 16,119 pounds per day of PM10\4\ for
the Missoula PM10 NAAQS nonattainment area will no longer be
applicable for transportation conformity purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The PM10 MVEB was originally derived from the
motor vehicle source category of the emissions inventory for the
Missoula PM10 nonattainment area; see the EPA 's SIP
approvals of December 13, 1994 (59 FR 64133) and August 30, 1995 (60
FR 45051.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that our adequacy review of the LMP for transportation
conformity is separate from our future rulemaking action on the
Missoula PM10 redesignation request and LMP SIP revision and
should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval or disapproval of
that SIP revision. Even if we find the Missoula PM10 LMP
adequate for transportation conformity purposes now, we may later find
it necessary to disapprove the SIP revision. Should this situation
arise, we would revisit our adequacy finding.

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

    Dated: September 14, 2018.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-20446 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P