[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61133-61137]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0048]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Intellistop, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to deny Intellistop, Inc.'s (Intellistop)
application for an exemption to allow motor carriers to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with Intellistop's module
which, when brakes are applied, pulses the required rear clearance,
identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity
to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and then
returns the lights to a steady-burning state. Intellistop has not shown
that an industry-wide exemption would likely

achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of
safety provided by the regulation.

DATES: This decision is applicable October 7, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

I. Supplememtary Information

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents,
comments submitted, or the notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Dockets Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs if it ``finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the
exemption.'' FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register and provide the public an opportunity to inspect
the information relevant to the application, including any safety
analyses that have been conducted, and an opportunity for public
comment on the request (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 381.315(a)).
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. Granted exemptions may be
renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Current Regulatory Requirements

    Section 393.25(e) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) requires all exterior lamps (both required lamps and any
additional lamps) be steady-burning, except for turn signal lamps,
hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps, amber warning
lamps or flashing warning lamps on tow trucks and CMVs transporting
oversized loads, and warning lamps on emergency and service vehicles
authorized by State or local authorities. This FMCSR is consistent with
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps,
reflective devices, and associated equipment'' (49 CFR 571.108) issued
by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), which, among other things, requires that
brake lamps, whether original or replacement equipment, be steady
burning.

IV. Intellistop's Application for Exemption

    Intellistop applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow
all motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module
which, when the brakes are applied, pulses the rear clearance,
identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity
to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and then
maintains the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) level of
illumination for those lamps until the brakes are released and
reapplied. Intellistop stated that if the module ever fails, the
clearance, identification, and brake lamps will default to normal OEM
function and illumination.
    Intellistop stated that previous research has demonstrated that the
use of pulsating brake-activated lamps increases visibility of vehicles
and thus has the ability to reduce rear-end crashes with commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs). Intellistop further stated that the use of the
Intellistop module would allow motor carriers to maintain operational
safety levels and implement more efficient and effective operations.
    Intellistop noted that FMCSA has previously granted similar, but
not identical, temporary exemptions \1\ to the National Tank Truck
Carriers Inc. (NTTC) (85 FR 63643, Oct. 8, 2020), Grote Industries, LLC
(Grote) (85 FR 78918, Dec. 7, 2020) (Grote), and Groendyke Transport
Inc. (Groendyke) (84 FR 17910, April 26, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ During the pendency of Intellistop's exemption application
FMCSA also granted a similar exemption to Waste Management Inc.
(Waste Management) (See 87 FR 3166, Jan. 20, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its application, Intellistop also referred to several studies
conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
on the issues of rear-end crashes, distracted driving, and braking
signals. Intellistop stated that the addition of brake-activated
pulsating lamp(s) will not have an adverse impact on safety, and that
adherence to the terms and conditions of the exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of
safety achieved without the exemption.
    A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at
the beginning of this notice.

V. Public Comments

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on June 14, 2021, and asked for public comment (86 FR 31552). The
Agency received comments from the Transportation Safety Equipment
Institute (TSEI), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), the
American Trucking Associations (ATA), Tankstar USA Inc. (Tankstar), the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and 15 other stakeholders and
individuals. Sixteen organizations and individuals supported approving
the exemption application, three individuals or organizations opposed
the exemption application, and one organization was noncommittal but
offered comments.
    ATA supported granting the exemption. ATA stated that:

    Consistent with DOT's reports and research, National Tank Truck
Carriers (NTTC) and Grote Industries have successfully petitioned
the agency to recognize the value of enhanced rear signaling (ERS)
for improving safe operations when compared with traditional
standard brake lamps. ERS can provide functions beyond what
traditional commercial motor vehicle (CMV) lighting and reflective
devices offer, including: attention to CMVs stopped ahead; awareness
of roadside breakdowns; emergency braking; and driver confidence
from both vehicles. In addition to these safety benefits, ERS
performance is superior to steady burning brake lamps in severe
weather conditions, tail light glare and around infrastructure
obstacles. ERS also reduces the chances of damage to both vehicles
involved in a rear-end crash, which improves commercial operation
uptime, CSA scores for the CMV owner, and traffic inconvenience.

    Tankstar operates a small group of trucking and bulk transport
companies

and supported Intellistop's request. Tankstar said that its companies
had experienced a number of rear end collisions. It also noted that the
34 percent reduction in rear end crashes reported by Groendyke while
using pulsating brake lamps supported the Intellistop request. Tankstar
pointed out that the Intellistop flash rate of 4 times in 2 seconds
does not match the higher intensity strobing lamps of emergency vehicle
lighting systems, and the application should not be denied on the
ground of possible confusion with such vehicles. TankStar stated that
it is testing the Intellistop module on a few of its trailers, noting
that the testing has been very successful in reducing crashes. Tankstar
stated that this type of safety product should have the ability to be
retrofitted, so as to impact highway safety immediately, and be
affordable.
    TSEI urged the Agency to deny the petition and offered the
following comment:

    The requirement that stop lamps and marker/clearance lamps be
steady burning is longstanding. We do not believe FMCSA should make
the leap from pulsating brake-activated warning or auxiliary lamps
to pulsating required lamps without a thorough consideration of
safety data and research[footnote omitted] with the aim of setting
standards (including those related to flash patterns) to ensure
consistency across all vehicles equipped with such lamps. . . . In
our comments to FMCSA related to prior exemption petitions, TSEI
acknowledged the safety benefits of brake-activated warning lamps
when used in conjunction with steady burning red brake lamps and we
have generally supported exemption requests for such lamps. However,
we also expressed concerns regarding the proliferation of multiple
lamps on the rear of commercial vehicles in the absence of
consistent standards related to number, color, intensity, flash
patterns, duty cycle, location, and other characteristics.

    The CVSA commented that it is opposed to allowing red brake-
activated pulsating lamps because pulsating red lamps are typically
associated with emergency vehicles. It stated that allowing red
pulsating lamps on the rear of commercial motor vehicles may negatively
impact the driving public's recognition and response to emergency
vehicles. CVSA further noted that many state laws prohibit nonemergency
vehicles from having pulsating red lights. CVSA stated that it would
support allowing motor carriers to equip commercial motor vehicles with
amber brake-activated pulsating lights, but not red brake-activated
pulsating lights, because of what it believes are likely unintended
safety impacts related to emergency vehicles. A different commenter
supported granting Intellistop's application specifically for red
pulsing lights, and not amber pulsing lights, based on the commenter's
review of studies on the effect of different wavelength lights (i.e.
different color lights) on human vision and crash data for vehicles
currently equipped with different colored flashing lights.
    The NTEA was noncommittal as to the exemption. However, NTEA noted,
``In an effort to clarify the distinctions between the FMCSA authority
over motor carrier operations and those of NHTSA over the manufacturer
of new motor vehicles and the make inoperative prohibitions to used
vehicle modifications, we respectfully request that FMCSA include in
any notices granting such exemptions a brief description of the
difference between FMCSA and NHTSA responsibilities and the limitations
to the involved entities and conditions under which they may perform
these modifications.''
    One individual opposed the petition, noting the potential for
driver confusion or distraction, while fourteen stakeholders and
individuals submitted brief comments in support of granting the
exemption. The commenters who supported the exemption generally
asserted that this technology may be able to reduce rear-end crashes
and should therefore be allowed, citing various benefits of brake
activated pulsating lamps, including (1) enhanced awareness that the
vehicle is making a stop, especially at railroad crossings, (2)
anecdotal reduction in rear-end crashes within commenter fleets,
presumably due to increased reaction time for following drivers, and
(3) increased visibility near rail-road crossings and in severe weather
conditions. Two commenters noted that flashing lights are used on other
vehicles, like utility trucks and emergency responder vehicles, to
improve driver awareness of those vehicles and therefore pulsing lights
on CMVs would similarly alert nearby drivers to the vehicles. In
general, the comments received were conclusory and anecdotal and did
not provide specific data or research in support of their position.

VI. Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis

    As noted, Intellistop petitions FMCSA to grant motor carriers an
exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e)--which requires certain exterior lamps
to be steady burning--in order to permit them use its device. FMCSA may
only grant such exemptions if it ``finds such exemption[s] would likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent the exemption[s].''
    Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of
all crashes. They often result from a failure to respond (or delays in
responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead vehicle. Data on crashes
that occurred between 2010 and 2016 show that large trucks are
consistently three times more likely than other vehicles to be struck
in the rear in two-vehicle fatal crashes.2 3 Accordingly,
FMCSA is deeply interested in the development and deployment of
technologies that can reduce the frequency, severity, and risk of rear-
end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2012), Traffic Safety Facts--2010 Data; Large
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 811 628, Washington, DC (June 2012),
available at: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811628.
    \3\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (2018), Traffic Safety Facts--2016 Data; Large
Trucks, Report No. DOT HS 812 497, Washington, DC (May 2018),
available at: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
Publication/
812497#:~:text=Fatalities%20in%20crashes%20involving%20large,to%204%2
C317%20fatalities%20in%202016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both FMCSA and NHTSA have considered alternative rear-signaling
systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. While these
efforts concluded that improvements could be realized through certain
rear-lighting systems that flash,\4\ neither the FMCSRs nor the FMVSSs
currently permit the use of pulsating, brake-activated lamps on the
rear of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two agencies' previous research
programs demonstrate that rear-signaling systems may be able to
``improve attention getting'' to reduce the frequency and severity of
rear-end crashes, though that benefit must be balanced against
increased risk of driver distraction and confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Expanded Research and Development of an Enhanced Rear
Signaling System for Commercial Motor Vehicles: Final Report,
William A. Schaudt et al. (Apr. 2014) (Report No. FMCSA-RRT-13-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Agency recognizes the existing data that supports the
potential safety value of alternative rear-signaling systems in
general, it is also mindful of the data deficiencies in this area. Data
deficiencies include the effect on nearby drivers if many vehicles on a
roadway are equipped with pulsing brake lights and whether such
lighting would serve to improve driver attention or, alternatively,
cause confusion or distraction. Commenters also disagree on which color
light is most appropriate to pulse on the rear of a vehicle, red or
amber, and at this time, FMCSA does not have sufficient data to support
one conclusion over the other.
    In addition to FMCSA's and NHTSA's research on rear-end crashes
into CMVs

outlined above, there is also data from other industry applicants whose
exemption requests the Agency has previously granted. FMCSA
acknowledges that the number of vehicles operating under those
exemptions is significant. Intellistop's exemption application,
however, is potentially far broader in scope than most previous
exemption applications FMCSA has granted, as it would apply to any
motor carrier that sought to use Intellistop's equipment and also,
importantly, alters the functioning of required lamps.\5\ FMCSA is
required to monitor implementation of the exemption to ensure
compliance with its terms and conditions and ensure that operation
under the exemption meets and maintains an equivalent level of safety.
Because of the broad scope of Intellistop's application, FMCSA would
not be able to sufficiently monitor operations under the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In contrast, the Groendyke exemption is specific to the
individual motor carrier and applies to a single, amber, auxiliary
lamp. The NTTC and Waste Management exemptions were both granted to
organizations and apply to tens of thousands of vehicles, but again,
apply to auxiliary lamps (whether red or amber, single or double
mounted). Finally, the Grote exemption does apply to all motor
carriers, but only allows flashing of an auxiliary lamp, unlike
Intellistop's device that alters the required lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, all other pulsing rear-light exemptions that FMCSA has
previously granted involved the addition of non-mandatory auxiliary
lighting systems, whereas Intellistop seeks permission to alter the
functionality of original equipment manufacturers' lamps, which are
covered by an existing FMVSS. The Agency believes this is a crucial
distinction, and one that TSEI highlighted in its comment. TSEI
explained that while it has generally supported other similar exemption
applications, in this instance it cautioned against making ``the leap
from pulsating brake-activated warning or auxiliary lamps to pulsating
required lamps.'' \6\ The Agency, in consultation with NHTSA, has
determined that it does not currently have data to support a blanket
exemption for industry \7\ to alter the performance of a required lamp
covered by the FMCSRs and FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, Comment to Docket
FMCSA-2021-0048 at 2 (July 14, 2021) (emphasis in original),
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2021-0048-0020.
    \7\ FMCSA seeks to make clear that this decision does not
preclude individual MCs from seeking an exemption to use an
Intellistop device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, FMCSA and NHTSA are concerned that additional requests
for industry-wide exemption from section 393.25(e) might follow, from
other companies seeking to market similar but perhaps slightly varying
brake lamp products that modify existing FMVSS brake lights. Industry-
wide exemptions are not the norm and FMCSA grants them only on a very
limited basis, especially when doing so would involve equipment
mandated by an FMVSS. The Agency has no data on the effect that such
broad adoption of pulsing brake lamps would have on driver distraction,
confusion, and overall safety, particularly if large numbers of trucks
quickly became equipped with such devices.
    Commenting on this exemption application, TSEI articulated its'
long-standing ``concerns regarding the proliferation of multiple lamps
on the rear of commercial vehicles in the absence of consistent
standards related to number, color, intensity, flash patterns, duty
cycle, location, and other characteristics.'' \8\ FMCSA shares TSEIs
concerns regarding the unknown safety effects from a sudden and
industry-wide proliferation of a variety of non-conforming lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, Comment to Docket
FMCSA-2021-0048 at 2 (July 14, 2021), available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2021-0048-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, FMCSA concludes that Intellistop failed to
demonstrate that its device is likely to provide the equivalent level
of safety as 49 CFR 393.25(e).

VII. Exemption Decision

    Given the scope of the exemption sought, to include all motor
carriers, and the limitations of the research studies completed to
date, the Agency believes an exemption to allow the alteration of the
performance of an FMVSS-required lighting device (i.e., stop lamps) on
all CMVs is not supported at this time.
    Applicants requesting an exemption bear the burden of demonstrating
that the exemption from existing regulatory requirements will likely
provide an equivalent level of safety to the existing regulations.
FMCSA has evaluated Intellistop's application and the comments received
in support of and opposition to the exemption. FMCSA has also reviewed
and analyzed the research cited by Intellistop in support of its
application.
    Unlike other exemption requests received by the Agency relating to
rear lighting, Intellistop's application seeks to alter the performance
of the FMVSS-required lighting device on all CMVs rather than adding
additional pulsating lights. Intellistop did not provide any specific
data relating to the operation of its device. Intellistop did not
provide data specific to the use of its module which pulses the
existing brake lamps rather than the use of additional lamps as
identified in the exemptions to Waste Management, Grote, NTTC, and
Groendyke, or regarding the distraction, confusion, or safety effects
of large numbers of trucks being so equipped.
    Generally, Intellistop relied on studies of other lighting
configurations proposing to add additional pulsating lights rather than
altering the performance of the existing brake lights. Further,
Intellistop did not provide data to demonstrate that the installation
of the device would safely interact with the CMV's existing systems or
to support its claim that a malfunction of the Intellistop device would
result in the brake lights returning to OEM functionality, in
conformance with the required FMVSS.
    While the technology at issue may have promise, FMCSA believes a
blanket exemption for all motor carriers to use Intellistop's product
is not supported by the currently available data, is not an appropriate
approach, and lacks the necessary monitoring controls to ensure highway
safety. Previous research programs demonstrate the potential
effectiveness of rear-signaling systems to ``improve attention
getting'' to reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes, but
that previous research does not address the potential safety benefits
or risks of a lighting system that would replace rather than merely
supplement a light required by an FMVSS. Thus, at this stage, the
record before the Agency does not show that Intellistop's petition for
an industry-wide exemption adequately demonstrates the required
threshold, of likely to achieve an equivalent level of safety.
    FMCSA notes that this decision does not necessarily preclude motor
carriers from seeking exemptions from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to purchase,
install, and use the Intellistop device subject to the terms and
conditions of an exemption if granted by FMCSA, as one of the bases of
the Agency's decision here is the broad reach of Intellistop's request.
Moreover, receipt and specific consideration by FMCSA of separate
applications for exemption from individual motor carriers or motor
carrier trade groups (especially those representing a particular class
or type of CMV operators) also more closely aligns FMCSA's exemption
granting practice with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act administered by
NHTSA, which states that, ``[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer,
rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly

make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on
or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an
applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this
chapter,'' other than to make repairs.\9\ Here, this would mean that
the installation of equipment like that included in Intellistop's
petition would likely run afoul of this prohibition if installed by any
entity other than the operator or owner. Granting an industry-wide
exemption would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
monitor the installation of the devices and the ``make inoperative''
provisions of the Safety Act. However, individual exemption
applications from motor carriers may more closely align with FMCSA and
NHTSA authorities to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations,
since the exemption grantee would be easily identifiable, and their
compliance with the ``make inoperative'' prohibition and any other
related regulations could be checked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). See also NHTSA Interpretation Letter
from Steve Wood to Wolfred Freeman (approx. 1989), available at:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam4661 (explaining that the
Safety Act ``prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner
of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part,
equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, Intellistop's application seeking an
industry-wide exemption for its pulsing brake light module is denied.

Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-21875 Filed 10-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 12)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3194-3197]
[DOCID:fr17ja08-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0943; FRL-8517-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Clean Air Mercury Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve the State Plan submitted
by Missouri on May 18, 2007, and revisions submitted on September 6,
2007. The plan addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR), promulgated on May 18, 2005, and subsequently revised on
June 9, 2006. EPA has determined that the submitted State Plan fully
meets the CAMR requirements for Missouri.
    CAMR requires States to regulate emissions of mercury (Hg) from
large coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). CAMR establishes
State budgets for annual EGU Hg emissions and requires States to submit
State Plans to ensure that annual EGU Hg emissions will not exceed the
applicable State budget. States have the flexibility to choose which
control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including
participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. In
the State Plan that EPA is approving today, Missouri has met the CAMR
requirements by electing to participate in the EPA trading program.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0943. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jay at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans?
IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR?
V. Analysis of Missouri's CAMR State Plan Submittal
    A. State Budgets
    B. CAMR State Plan
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's State Plan,
submitted on May

18, 2007, and revisions submitted on September 6, 2007. In its State
Plan, Missouri has met CAMR by requiring certain coal-fired EGUs to
participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program addressing Hg
emissions. EPA proposed to approve Missouri's request to amend the
State's Plan on September 27, 2007 (72 FR 54872). No comments were
received. EPA is finalizing the approval as proposed based on the
rationale stated in the proposal and in this final action.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR?

    CAMR was published by EPA on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28606, ``Standards
of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule''). In this rule, acting
pursuant to its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), EPA required that all States and the District
of Columbia (all of which are referred to herein as States) meet
Statewide annual budgets limiting Hg emissions from coal-fired EGUs (as
defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8)) under CAA section 111(d). EPA required
all States to submit State Plans with control measures that ensure that
total, annual Hg emissions from the coal-fired EGUs located in the
respective States do not exceed the applicable statewide annual EGU
mercury budget. Under CAMR, States may implement and enforce these
reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-
and-trade program or by adopting any other effective and enforceable
control measures.
    CAA section 111(d) requires States, and along with CAA section
301(d) and the Tribal Air Rule (40 CFR part 49) allows Tribes granted
treatment as States (TAS), to submit State Plans to EPA that implement
and enforce the standards of performance. CAMR explains what must be
included in State Plans to address the requirements of CAA section
111(d). The State Plans were due to EPA by November 17, 2006. Under 40
CFR 60.27(b), the Administrator will approve or disapprove the State
Plans.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans?

    CAMR establishes Statewide annual EGU Hg emission budgets and is to
be implemented in two phases. The first phase of reductions starts in
2010 and continues through 2017. The second phase of reductions starts
in 2018 and continues thereafter. CAMR requires States to implement the
budgets by either: (1) Requiring coal-fired EGUs to participate in the
EPA-administered cap-and-trade program; or (2) adopting other coal-
fired EGU control measures of the respective State's choosing and
demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with
the applicable State annual EGU Hg budget.
    Each State Plan must require coal-fired EGUs to comply with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75
concerning Hg mass emissions. Each State Plan must also show that the
State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and
compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the
State's annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of
coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75.

IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR?

    Each State Plan must impose control requirements that the State
demonstrates will limit Statewide annual Hg emissions from new and
existing coal-fired EGUs to the amount of the State's applicable annual
EGU Hg budget. States have the flexibility to choose the type of EGU
control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAMR. EPA
anticipates that many States will choose to meet the CAMR requirements
by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-
administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. EPA also anticipates that many
States may choose to control Statewide annual Hg emissions for new and
existing coal-fired EGUs through an alternative mechanism other than
the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. Each State that
chooses an alternative mechanism must include with its plan a
demonstration that the State Plan will ensure that the State will meet
its assigned State annual EGU Hg emission budget.
    A State submitting a State Plan that requires coal-fired EGUs to
participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program may
either adopt regulations that are substantively identical to the EPA
model Hg trading rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH) or incorporate by
reference the model rule. CAMR provides that States may only make
limited changes from the model rule if the States want to participate
in the EPA-administered trading program. A State Plan may deviate from
the model rule only by altering the allowance allocation provisions to
provide for State-specific allocation of Hg allowances using a
methodology chosen by the State. A State's alternative allowance
allocation provisions must meet certain allocation timing requirements
and must ensure that total allocations for each calendar year will not
exceed the State's annual EGU Hg budget for that year.

V. Analysis of Missouri's CAMR State Plan Submittal

A. State Budgets

    In this action, EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's
State Plan that adopts the annual EGU Hg budgets established for the
State in CAMR, i.e., 1.393 tons for EGU Hg emissions in 2010-2017 and
0.55 tons for EGU Hg emissions in 2018 and thereafter. Missouri's State
Plan sets these budgets as the total amount of allowances available for
allocation for each year under the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade
program.

B. CAMR State Plan

    The Missouri State Plan requires coal-fired EGUs to participate in
the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. The State Plan
incorporates by reference the EPA model Hg trading rule but has adopted
an alternative allowance allocation methodology. States may establish
in their State Plan submissions a different Hg allowance allocation
methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the
States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of
submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation
and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period.
In adopting alternative Hg allowance allocation methodologies, States
have flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed,
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal
output; and
    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    In Missouri's alternative allowance methodology, Missouri has
chosen to distribute Hg allowances directly based upon Table I in 10
CSR 10-6.368. The table permanently allocates to designated units the
entirety of Missouri's mercury allowances for both phases of the
program. Accordingly, Missouri has not provided allowances for the
establishment of set-aside accounts.
    Missouri's State Plan requires coal-fired EGUs to comply with the

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75
concerning Hg mass emissions. Missouri's State Plan also demonstrates
that the State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and
compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the
State's annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of
coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Missouri cites Section
643.050 and 643.055 of the Missouri Air Conservation Law, as containing
the legal authority for the Missouri Air Conservation Commission to
adopt the State's rule that allows for Missouri's participation in the
nationwide cap-and-trade program.
    EPA's review of Missouri's State Plan has found that it meets the
requirements of CAMR. As a result, EPA is taking final action to
approve Missouri's State Plan.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this action approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it 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).
    This action also does not have Tribal implications 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a
Federal standard. It does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' requires
Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. EPA
guidance \1\ states that EPA is to assess whether minority or low-
income populations face risk or a rate of exposure to hazards that is
significant and that ``appreciably exceed[s] or is likely to
appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or to the
appropriate comparison group.'' (EPA, 1998) Because this rule merely
approves a state rule implementing the Federal standard established by
CAMR, EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify today's
regulatory decision on the basis of environmental justice
considerations. However, EPA has already considered the impact of CAMR,
including this Federal standard, on minority and low-income
populations. In the context of EPA's CAMR published in the Federal
Register on May 18, 2005, in accordance with Executive Order 12898, the
Agency has considered whether CAMR may have disproportionate negative
impacts on minority or low income populations and determined it would
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidance for
Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA
Compliance Analyses. Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC,
April, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing State Plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a State Plan for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State Plan
submission, to use VCS in place of a State Plan submission that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
    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. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule 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 March 17, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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 Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 8, 2008.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. Subpart AA is amended by adding an undesignated center heading and
Sec.  62.6362 to read as follows:

Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units

Sec.  62.6362  Identification of Plan.

    (a) Identification of plan. Section 111(d) plan and associated
State regulation 10 CSR 10-6.368, Control of Mercury Emissions From
Electric Generating Units, as adopted in Missouri's Code of State
Regulations on April 30, 2007.
    (b) Identification of sources. The plan applies to all new and
existing mercury budget units meeting the applicability requirements in
Missouri's State rule 10 CSR 10-6.368.
    (c) Effective date. The effective date for the portion of the plan
applicable to mercury budget units as described in Missouri State rule
10 CSR 10-6.368 is February 19, 2008.

[FR Doc. E8-807 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 58464-58465]
[DOCID:fr24se10-155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62941; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Add Certain
Rules to the List of Exchange Rule Violations and Fines Applicable
Thereto

September 20, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 9, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Disciplinary Rule 476A to
add certain rules to Part 1A: List of Exchange Rule Violations and
Fines Applicable Thereto (``Minor Rule Violation Plan''). The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Disciplinary Rule 476A to
add certain rules to Part 1A of its Minor Rule Violation Plan to
reflect approved changes to Exchange rules.\3\ Specifically, in
connection with the Exchange's process to harmonize certain Exchange
rules with rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), the Exchange has deleted certain Exchange rules and
replaced them with new rules that have different rule numbers. The
Exchange proposes this rule filing to add the new rule references to
the Minor Rule Violation Plan for those rules that have been added as
part of the FINRA harmonization process. The Exchange will not delete
the old rule references in the Minor Rule Violation Plan so that
violations of prior Exchange rules that occurred before the amendments
described below took effect still fall under the jurisdiction of the
Minor Rule Violation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange's corporate affiliate, New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE''), submitted a companion rule filing proposing
corresponding amendments to NYSE Rule 476A. See SR-NYSE-2010-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the harmonization process, the Exchange adopted
the following new NYSE Amex Equities Rules, which correspond with the
same-numbered consolidated FINRA Rules, and which replaced prior
Exchange rules:
     Rule 2150--NYSE Amex Equities (Improper Use of Customers'
Securities or Funds; Prohibition Against Guarantees and Sharing in
Accounts) replaced old Rules 352(a)-(d)--NYSE Amex Equities;
     Rule 3130--NYSE Amex Equities (Annual Certification of
Compliance and Supervisory Processes) replaced, in relevant part, old
Rules 342.30(d)- and (e)-NYSE Amex Equities and Rule Interpretation
311(b)(5)--NYSE Amex Equities;
     Rule 3310--NYSE Amex Equities (Anti-Money Laundering
Compliance Program) replaced old Rule 445--NYSE Amex Equities;
     Rule 4110--NYSE Amex Equities (Capital Compliance)
replaced, in

relevant part, old Rules 312(h)- and 313-NYSE Amex Equities;
     Rule 4521--NYSE Amex Equities (Notifications,
Questionnaires and Reports) replaced, in relevant part, old Rule 421--
NYSE Amex Equities;
     Rule 4560--NYSE Amex Equities (Short-Interest Reporting)
replaced old Rules 421(1)- and 421.10-NYSE Amex Equities; and
     Rule 5190--NYSE Amex Equities (Notification Requirements
for Offering Participants) replaced old Rule 392--NYSE Amex
Equities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59975 (May 26,
2009), 74 FR 26449 (June 2, 2009) (SR-NYSEAltr-2009-26) (adopting,
inter alia, NYSE Amex Equities Rules 3130, 4560, 5190); 61157
(December 11, 2009), 74 FR 67939 (December 21, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-
2009-88) (adopting NYSE Amex Equities Rule 2150); 61272 (December
31, 2009), 75 FR 1099 (January 8, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-99)
(adopting NYSE Amex Equities Rule 3310); 61556 (February 22, 2010),
75 FR 9468 (March 2, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-13) (adopting, inter
alia, NYSE Amex Equities Rules 4110, 4521). See also NYSE and NYSE
Amex Information Memoranda 09-24 (June 2, 2009); 10-09 (February 18,
2010); 10-12 (March 11, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These old Rules, or certain provisions thereof, are subject to the
Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan under NYSE Amex Disciplinary Rule
476A. At the time the new Rules were adopted to replace the old
Exchange Rules, however, they were not added to the Exchange's Minor
Rule Violation Plan. The Exchange therefore proposes to update the
Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan under NYSE Amex Disciplinary Rule
476A by adding the new rule references identified above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with, and furthers the objectives of, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in
that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change also furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ in that it provides for appropriate
discipline for violations of Exchange rules and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide
the Exchange with greater regulatory flexibility to enforce the
prescriptions of certain rules in a more informal manner while also
preserving the Exchange's discretion to seek formal discipline for more
serious transgressions as warranted.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder.\8\ Because
the proposed rule change is concerned solely with the administration of
the Exchange, the proposed rule change has become immediately effective
upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-94 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-94. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-94 and should be submitted on or before October 15, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23911 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31048-31049]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12547]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67018; File No. SR-OCC-2012-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to More Closely Align OCC's By-
Laws and Rules With Regulatory Requirements Related to ``Statutory
Disqualifications''

May 18, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On March 15, 2012, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed
rule change SR-OCC-2012-03 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 4, 2012.\2\
On May 15, 2012, OCC filed an amendment to the proposed rule
change.\3\The Commission received no comment letters. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-66676 (March 29,
2012), 77 FR 20472 (April 4, 2012).
    \3\ The amendment made changes to OCC's ``Fitness Standard for
Directors, Clearing Members and Others'' to conform it to the recent
changes made to OCC's By-Laws pursuant to File No. SR-OCC-2012-01,
which was approved by the Commission on March 9, 2012. As such, the
amendment was technical in nature and did not require republication
of notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The proposed rule change will more closely align OCC's By-Laws and
Rules with applicable regulatory requirements related to ``statutory
disqualifications'' under the Act in order to reduce the overall
administrative burden on OCC associated with addressing the statutory
disqualification of OCC clearing members (``Clearing Members'') and
applicants for clearing membership (``Applicants'') and will provide
guidance to Clearing Members and Applicants as to OCC's policies with
respect to statutory disqualifications. The proposed rule change will
amend OCC's ``Fitness Standards for Directors, Clearing Members and
Others'' (``Fitness Standards'') to bring such standards into
conformity with the proposed amendments to OCC's By-Laws. The Fitness
Standards were submitted to the Commission in proposed rule change SR-
OCC-2011-12 and were approved by the Commission on October 27, 2011.4

A. Background

    Persons who have engaged in certain types of misconduct are subject
to ``statutory disqualification,'' as defined by Section 3(a)(39) of
the Act, and must undergo a review by the Commission under Rule 19h-1
of the Act in order to enter or continue in membership in a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO''). Section 17A(b)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a registered clearing agency may and in cases in which
the Commission so orders must deny participation to any person subject
to a statutory disqualification. This provision further requires a
registered clearing agency to provide the Commission with 30-days'
notice before admitting a statutorily disqualified person to clearing
membership. Rule 19h-1 of the Act implements these statutory provisions
by requiring notice to the Commission if a registered clearing agency
proposes either to admit to membership or to continue as a member a
person subject to a statutory disqualification. Notably, unlike in the
case of a national securities exchange or registered securities
association, the rule does not require a registered clearing agency to
file such a notice with respect to statutory disqualifications of
associated persons of a Clearing Member or Applicant. A registered
clearing agency is required to file such a notice only when the
Clearing Member or Applicant itself is subject to the disqualification.
    Article V of OCC's By-Laws establishes the qualifications required
of Clearing Members and sets forth the procedures for admitting persons
to clearing membership, including those that are or become subject to a
statutory disqualification. Currently, Interpretation and Policy .03 of
Article V, Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws provides that the Membership/Risk
Committee (``Committee'') will not recommend the approval of an
application for membership if the Applicant or an associated person is
subject to a statutory disqualification unless the Committee makes a
finding that ``special circumstances'' exist warranting a waiver of the
statutory disqualification. The requirements of this By-Law are more
stringent than those applied to registered clearing agencies by the Act
or Commission rules because they require the Committee to (i) make
specific findings of ``special circumstances'' before recommending
membership approval and (ii) address statutory disqualifications of
associated persons. The By-Laws therefore impose additional
administrative burdens on OCC that are not required under any statute
or rule administered by the Commission.
    Neither Article V of the By-Laws nor OCC's Rules currently contain
procedures for notice to OCC that an Applicant or Clearing Member is
subject to a statutory disqualification, which provides insufficient
guidance to Applicants and Clearing Members and exposes OCC to the risk
that such notice may be given on a delayed basis. OCC's By-Laws and
Rules are also silent as to the procedures to be followed by a Clearing
Member when it becomes subject to a statutory disqualification even
though Rule 19h-1 requires a registered clearing agency to file a
notice if it intends to permit such a firm to remain a Clearing Member.
    As a registered derivatives clearing organization (``DCO''), OCC is
also subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC''). OCC's By-Laws also address statutory
disqualification

under Section 8a(2)-(4) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''), which
allows the CFTC to refuse to register or to suspend the registration of
futures commission merchants and other entities required to register
under the CEA. Neither the CEA nor the CFTC's regulations require DCOs
to file a notice similar to that required by Rule 19h-1, and OCC
therefore is not proposing to amend Article V or the Rules to
specifically address statutory disqualifications under the CEA other
than to clarify that if a principal of a futures commission merchant is
subject to a statutory disqualification, the Membership/Risk Committee
has discretion to not recommend the approval of such futures commission
merchant's application for membership pursuant to Section 8a(2) of the
CEA or to determine not to permit such a futures commission merchant to
continue in Clearing Membership.
    In addition to being consistent with the Commission's regulations,
OCC's Fitness Standards, as described above, were constructed in part
to comply with core principles (``Core Principles'') applicable to DCOs
as these core principles were amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act and as are set forth in the CEA. The
Fitness Standards establish certain minimum fitness criteria for
directors, Clearing Members, and their affiliates sufficient to comply
with Core Principle O as set forth in the CEA.\5\ However, the Fitness
Standards were also drafted to conform to OCC's existing qualification
standards for Clearing Members, which standards OCC is now proposing to
revise. Accordingly, OCC proposes to amend the Fitness Standards to
conform them to the proposed amendments to the qualification standards
for Applicants and Clearing Members in OCC's By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Commodity Exchange Act Sec.  5b(c)(2)(O); 7 U.S.C. 7a-
1(c)(2)(O).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed By-Law Changes

    Article V (Clearing Members) sets forth the qualifications for
Clearing Members. OCC proposes to amend the current Article V
provisions addressing statutory disqualifications to eliminate
provisions that require unnecessary Committee action and to add
provisions designed to ensure that OCC receives appropriate notice of a
statutory disqualification in order to discharge its obligations as an
SRO. The proposed amendments are generally based on similar rules of
the National Securities Clearing Corporation and the Chicago Board
Options Exchange. OCC proposes to amend Article V, Section 1,
Interpretation and Policy .03 (Experience and Competence) to:
    1. Eliminate the requirement that the Committee must find ``special
circumstances'' warranting the waiver of a statutory disqualification
in order to recommend an Applicant's approval for clearing membership
providing instead that the Committee may in its discretion consider a
statutory disqualification in determining whether or not to recommend
approval.
    2. Eliminate the requirement that the Committee address the status
of associated persons who are subject to statutory disqualifications.
    3. Establish procedures requiring Clearing Members and Applicants
to provide notice of a statutory disqualification.
    4. Eliminate the second paragraph of subsection c. The definition
of statutory disqualification in subsection a. includes the conduct
covered by Section 15(b)(4)(B) of the Act, making the second paragraph
of subsection c. redundant.
    OCC proposes to amend Chapter II and Chapter XII of its Rules to:
    1. Establish procedures applicable to Clearing Members who are or
become subject to a statutory disqualification to provide that: (i) OCC
has the discretion not to permit any such Clearing Member to continue
in Clearing Membership, (ii) such Clearing Member must notify OCC of
any statutory disqualification and may seek to continue in Clearing
Membership, (iii) a failure to notify OCC of a statutory
disqualification may be deemed a violation of OCC's rules, (iv) OCC may
convene a Disciplinary Committee to conduct a hearing concerning a
Clearing Member's statutory disqualification, (v) OCC has discretion to
waive such provisions if another self-regulatory organization is
conducting a proceeding addressing a Clearing Member's statutory
disqualification with respect to the same matter, and (vi) OCC has
discretion to waive the hearing provisions if OCC intends to grant the
Clearing Member's application to continue in Clearing Membership in
certain circumstances.
    2. Add Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1201 in order to
clarify that a decision to suspend or expel a Clearing Member after a
disciplinary proceeding under Chapter XII of the Rules would be grounds
for summary suspension under Chapter XI of the Rules.
    OCC also proposes to amend its Fitness Standards to conform them to
the proposed amendments to OCC's By-Laws.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \6\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \7\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency are
not designed to permit unfair discrimination in the admission of
participants or among participants in the use of the clearing agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws are designed to more closely
align OCC's By-Laws and Rules with applicable regulatory requirements,
to establish standard notification and other procedures, to provide
Clearing Members with guidance as to OCC's policies regarding statutory
disqualifications, to facilitate the timely filing of notices pursuant
to Rule 19h-1 should OCC determine to admit to membership or continue
in membership any person subject to a statutory disqualification. The
proposed changes are not designed to permit unfair discrimination in
the admission of participants or among participants in the use of OCC.
As a result, the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change, as amended, (File No. SR-OCC-
2012-03) be, and hereby is, approved.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12547 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 502]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD15-5-000]

Available Transfer Capability Standards for Wholesale Electric
Transmission Services; Notice of Workshop

    Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff will convene a workshop to discuss actions the Commission could
take to ensure that transmission providers continue to calculate and
post available transfer capability (ATC) in a manner that ensures
nondiscriminatory access to wholesale electric transmission services.
This workshop is prompted by the filing by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation proposing changes to its ATC-related
reliability standards,\1\ and the initiative to replace these standards
with similarly focused business practice standards to be developed by
the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB).\2\ The workshop will
be held on Thursday, March 5, 2015 from 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the
Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Commission members may
participate in the workshop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NERC's proposal is currently pending before the Commission
in the rulemaking: Modeling, Data, and Analysis Reliability
Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM14-7-000; 79
FR 36,269 (June 26, 2014).
    \2\ See, e.g., the December 18, 2014 status report filed by
NAESB in Docket Nos. RM05-5-000 and RM14-7-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A supplemental notice will be issued prior to the workshop with
further details regarding the agenda and organization of the workshop.
The workshop will be open for the public to attend. Advance
registration is not required, but is encouraged. Attendees may register
at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/03-05-15-form.asp.
    Details also will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the
Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov.
    Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For further information on this workshop, please contact:

Logistical Information: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Technical Information: Christopher Young, Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Legal Information Richard Wartchow, Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 30, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30960 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25624-25627]
[DOCID:fr07my08-32]

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

COAST GUARD

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0314]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Red Bull Air Race, Detroit River, Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone
on the Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan. This Zone is intended to
restrict vessels from portions of the Detroit River during the Red Bull
Air Race. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators
and vessels from the hazards associated with air races.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0314 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulation.gov.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Jeff Ahlgren, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI
48207,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0314), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
document to ensure that you can be identified as the submitter. This
also allows us to contact you in the event further information is
needed or if there are questions. For example, if we cannot read your
submission due to technical difficulties and you cannot be contacted;
your submission may not be considered. You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by
mail or 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 them 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. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

B. 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 at
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0218) in the Docket ID

box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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 the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one 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.

Background and Purpose

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and the public from hazards associated with an air race. The
Captain of the Port Detroit has determined air races in close proximity
to watercraft and infrastructure pose significant risk to public safety
and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation
vessels, airplanes traveling at high speeds and performing aerial
acrobatics, and large numbers of spectators in close proximity on the
water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities.
Establishing a safety zone around the location of the race course will
help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help
minimize the associated risks.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule is intended to ensure safety of the public and
vessels during the setup, course familiarization, time trials and race
in conjunction with the Red Bull Air Race. The air race and associated
set-up and removal will occur between 9 a.m., May 29, 2008 and 6 p.m.,
June 1, 2008. The safety zone will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
May 29, 2008 through May 31, 2008, and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 1,
2008.
    The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of the United
States on the Detroit River, Detroit, MI, bound by a line extending
from a point on land southwest of Joe Louis Arena at position
42[deg]19.4' N; 083[deg]3.3' W, northeast along the Detroit shoreline
to a point on land at position 42[deg]20.0' N; 083[deg]1.2' W,
southeast to the international border with Canada at position
42[deg]19.8' N; 083[deg]1.0' W, southwest along the international
border to position 42[deg]19.2' N; 083[deg]3.3' W, and northwest to the
point of origin at position 42[deg]19.4' N; 083[deg]3.3' W. (DATUM: NAD
83).
    The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the
safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate
means to the affected segments of the public. Such means of
notification will include, but is not limited to, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. Likewise, the Windsor Port
Authority intends to restrict vessel movement on the Canadian side of
the Detroit River. The exclusionary area on the Canadian side will be
aligned with the east and west borders of the U.S. safety zone and will
extend to the shoreline along Windsor, ON. The Captain of the Port will
issue a broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when
enforcement of the safety zone is terminated.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will
be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast
Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones'
activation.

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 rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in the above portion of the Detroit River between 9 a.m. and
6 p.m. on May 29, 2008 through June 1, 2008.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for approximately six hours each day of the
race. Additionally, small entities such as passenger vessels, have been
involved in the planning stages for this event and have had ample time
to make alternate arrangements with regards to mooring positions and
business operations during the hours this safety zone will be in place.
Furthermore, local sailing and yacht clubs will be notified prior to
the event by Coast Guard Station Belle Isle with information on what to
expect during the event with the intention of minimizing interruptions
in their normal business practices. In the event that this temporary
safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission
from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit through the safety
zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Additionally, the
COTP will suspend enforcement of the safety zone if the event for which
the zone is established ends earlier than the expected time.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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 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
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact LT Jeff Ahlgren, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount

Elliot Ave., Detroit MI, 48207;<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This 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
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 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 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

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights
protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this
Proposed 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. Nevertheless, Indian
Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Proposed
Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of
contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides 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 there are no factors in this
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event
establishes a safety zone, therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the
Instruction applies.
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be
considered before we make the final decision on whether this proposed
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental
review. 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, and 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 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.

    2. Section 165.T09-0314 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0314  Safety Zone; Red Bull Air Race, Detroit River,
Detroit, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all
U.S. waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI, bound by a line
extending from a point on land southwest of Joe Louis Arena at position
42[deg]19.4' N; 083[deg]3.3' W, northeast along the Detroit shoreline
to a point on land at position 42[deg]20.0' N; 083[deg]1.2' W,
southeast to the international boarder with Canada at position
42[deg]19.8' N; 083[deg]1.0' W, southwest along the international
border to position 42[deg]19.2'

N; 083[deg]3.3' W, and northwest to the point of origin at position
42[deg]19.4' N; 083[deg]3.3' W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (b) Effective Period. This regulation is effective from 9 a.m. on
May 29, 2008 through 6 p.m. on June 1, 2008. The safety zone will be
enforced daily from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 29, 2008 through May 31,
2008, and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 1, 2008.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Detroit, 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 Detroit or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so.
    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 or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: April 23, 2008.
P.W. Brennan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
 [FR Doc. E8-10238 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 20700]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07942]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.
Extension:
    Form N-8F, OMB Control No. 3235-0157; SEC File No. 270-136.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form N-8F (17 CFR 274.218) is the form prescribed for use by
registered investment companies in certain circumstances to request
orders of the Commission declaring that the registration of that
investment company cease to be in effect. The form requests information
about: (i) The investment company's identity, (ii) the investment
company's distributions, (iii) the investment company's assets and
liabilities, (iv) the events leading to the request to deregister, and
(v) the conclusion of the investment company's business. The
information is needed by the Commission to determine whether an order
of deregistration is appropriate.
    The Form takes approximately 5.5 hours on average to complete. It
is estimated that approximately 142 investment companies file Form N-8F
annually, so the total annual burden for the form is estimated to be
approximately 781 hours. The estimate of average burden hours is made
solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not
derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study.
    The collection of information on Form N-8F is not mandatory. The
information provided on Form N-8F is not kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently-valid OMB
control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer,
Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General
Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: April 1, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07942 Filed 4-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P