[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43695-43697]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14653]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0400; FRL-10011-87-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal of Control of Emissions From
Bakery Ovens

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Missouri on December 3, 2018 and
supplemented by letter on May 22, 2019. Missouri requests that the EPA
remove a rule related to control of emissions from bakery ovens in the
Kansas City, Missouri area from its SIP. This removal does not have an
adverse effect on air quality. The EPA's approval of this rule revision
is in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0400. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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 through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7714; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. The EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving the removal of 10 Code of State Regulation
(CSR) 10-2.360, Control of Emissions from Bakery Ovens, from the
Missouri SIP.
    As explained in detail in the EPA's proposed rule, Missouri has
demonstrated that removal of 10 CSR 10-2.360 will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress \1\ or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA because the single source subject to
the rule has permanently ceased operations and removal of the rule will
not cause VOC emissions to increase. 85 FR 22378, April 22, 2020.
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing its proposal to remove 10 CSR 10-2.360
from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reasonable further progress is not applicable to the Kansas
City Area because the area is in attainment of all applicable ozone
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from February 28,
2018, to April 5, 2018 and received five comments from the EPA that
related to Missouri's lack of an adequate demonstration that the rule
could be removed from the SIP in accordance with section 110(l) of the
CAA. Missouri's May 22, 2019 letter addressed the EPA's comments. In
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. The EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened April
22, 2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register and
closed on May 22, 2020. During this period, the EPA received four
comments. Three of the comments were not adverse and do not require a
response from the EPA. The remaining comment is addressed in this
document.
    Comment: The commenter stated that they did not support this action
because industrial cooking produces significant amounts of black carbon
or soot and indoor air pollution, referring to cooking

over open fires or on inefficient cookstoves. The commenter also
requested that a comprehensive study should be conducted for each
existing bakery in the Kansas City Area that is currently operating
under Missouri's SIP rule 10 CSR 2.360 before any deregulation. The
commenter also stated that the rule should be changed to apply only to
existing bakeries and to exclude any overlap with the NSR permitting
program.
    Response: The regulation being rescinded applies to commercial
bakery ovens, not cookstoves. Commercial bakery ovens differ from
cookstoves in important ways. Simple cookstoves burn solid fuels such
as coal, wood, and animal dung.\2\ These cookstoves emit large amounts
of pollutants, including particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO),
metals, hydrocarbons, oxygenated organic compounds, and chlorinated
organic compounds, depending on fuel and stove types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673244/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, commercial bakery ovens burn gaseous fuels like
natural gas.\3\ The primary pollutant produced in the commercial bakery
process is VOC's from the yeast metabolism and emitted when the dough
is exposed to the high temperatures of the bakery oven. The emissions
are vented outdoors often through elevated stacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ctg_act/199212_voc_epa453_r-92-017_bakery_ovens.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule only controlled VOC emissions from commercial bakery
ovens and does not impact emissions from cookstoves.
    The commenter requests a study of other bakeries in the Kansas City
Area operating under 10 CSR 10-2.360. As we stated in the proposal, the
only source that was subject to the rule, has been shut down since 2001
and was dismantled. No new commercial bakery oven facilities have
commenced operation in the area since Missouri developed this rule. As
stated in the proposal, air quality in the Kansas City area has also
steadily improved. The air monitoring data for the area can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
    The commenter proposes that the rule should be changed to only
apply to existing sources so that there is no overlap with NSR
permitting. As stated in the proposal and above, there are no sources
currently subject to the rule. New sources and existing sources who
meet certain criteria when modifying their facility are subject to NSR
permitting. The NSR rules are contained in a separate portion of the
Clean Air Act and work together with RACT rules, such as this one, to
ensure the air quality goals of the Clean Air Act are met.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's request to
remove 10 CSR 10-2.360 from the SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-
Approved Missouri Regulation from the Missouri State Implementation
Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 24, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 1, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

Sec.  52.1320  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, amend the table in paragraph (c) by removing the
entry ``10-2.360'' under the heading ``Chapter 2--Air Quality Standards
and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City Metropolitan
Area''.

[FR Doc. 2020-14653 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26438-26441]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10470]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0889; FRL-9666-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Approval of 2011 Consent Decree To Control Emissions From the
GenOn Chalk Point Generating Station; Removal of 1978 and 1979 Consent
Orders

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) pertaining to the GenOn Chalk Point
Generating Station (Chalk Point). These revisions approve specific
provisions of a 2011 Consent Decree between MDE and GenOn to reduce
particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SOX), and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) from Chalk Point. These revisions also remove
the 1978 and 1979 Consent Orders for the Chalk Point generating station
from the Maryland SIP as those Consent Orders have been superseded by
the 2011 Consent Decree. EPA is approving these SIP revisions because
the reductions of PM, SOX, and NOX are beneficial
for reducing ambient levels of the PM, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ozone. They also reduce visible
emissions from Chalk Point. This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 3, 2012 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 4, 2012. If EPA
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0889 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0889, Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director
for Policy and Science, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP00, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0889. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department
of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director
for Policy and Science, Air Protection Division, Project officer, (215)
814-2104 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 12, 2011, MDE submitted revisions
to its SIP for the GenOn Chalk Point generating station located at
25100 Chalk Point Road in Aquasco, Maryland. These revisions approve a
2011 Consent Decree between MDE and GenOn to control PM, SOX
and NOX from Chalk Point. These revisions also remove the
1978 and 1979 Consent Orders for Chalk Point from the Maryland SIP as
those Consent Orders have been superseded by the 2011 Consent Decree.
The purpose of the 2011 Consent Decree is to address stack test
violations at Chalk Point Unit 4. As part of the settlement
with MDE, GenOn has agreed to combust natural gas in Units 3
and 4 for no less than 75% of the annual heat input of the
units, and for at least 95% of the ozone season (May 1st--September
30th) heat input instead of 6 fuel oil. Burning natural gas
instead of 6 fuel oil results in a significant decrease in
emissions of PM, SOX and NOX. These SIP revisions
to reduce PM, SOX, and NOX emissions are
beneficial for reducing ambient levels of the criteria pollutants PM,
SO2, and NO2. As NOX is a precursor
pollutant of ground level ozone, these reductions are also beneficial
for reducing ambient levels of the criteria pollutant ozone. In
addition, these revisions reduce visible emissions from Chalk Point.

I. Background

    The Chalk Point generating station consists of four steam electric
generating units located in Aquasco, Maryland which is part of Prince
George County. Units 1 and 2 are coal fired baseload
units each rated at 355 megawatts. Units 3 and 4 are
cycling units permitted to burn natural gas and oil, each rated at 640
megawatts. Consent Orders signed in 1978 and 1979 with the Potomac
Electric Power Company (Pepco, the former owner) allowed Chalk Point
Units 1-3 to combust higher sulfur fuels than
Maryland regulations allow and Unit 3 was also allowed to emit
higher PM and visible emissions than Maryland regulations allow. In
2006, MDE and Pepco signed a Consent Decree to address opacity (visible
emissions) violations from Chalk Point Units 3 and 4.
That 2006 Consent Decree required Units 3 and 4 to
burn natural gas during the ozone season for 95% of the heat input. The
2006 Consent Decree for Chalk Point also terminated the 1978 and 1979
Consent Orders with Pepco, effective May 1, 2007. However, the Maryland
SIP was not revised at that time to remove the 1978 and 1979 Consent
Orders and replace them with the 2006 Consent Decree.

II. Summary of the SIP Revision

    In 2011, MDE and GenOn (new owner of Chalk Point) signed a Consent
Decree, effective on March 10, 2011, for Chalk Point which amends,
restates, and replaces the 2006 Consent Decree. On October 11, 2012,
MDE submitted specific provisions of the 2011 Consent Decree to EPA for
approval as a SIP revision. A copy of the provisions of the 2011
Consent Decree for Chalk Point for which MDE is requesting approval as
SIP revisions is included in the docket for this rulemaking. Hereafter
in describing the SIP revision, EPA is referring to the provisions of
the 2011 Consent Decree that are being made part of the SIP. The
October 11, 2012 SIP revision submittal from MDE also includes a
request to remove the 1978 and 1979 Consent Orders for Chalk Point from
the Maryland SIP.
    Under the 2011 Consent Decree, Chalk Point Units 3 and
4 must burn natural gas for no less than 75% of the annual
heat input of the units. In addition, the 2011 Consent Decree
reiterates the 2006 Consent Decree's requirement that Chalk Point Units
3 and 4 use natural gas for at least 95% of the ozone
season heat input. The 2011 Consent Decree also requires Chalk Point to
perform a stack test for PM while burning residual fuel oil in 2011,
and to perform stack testing for PM from Units 3 and
4 any calendar year that either unit exceeds 570,000 MBTU from
the burning of residual fuel oil. The 2011 Consent Decree submitted for
approval as a revision to the Maryland SIP also includes provisions for
determining compliance, operating control equipment, determining the
sulfur content of fuel, as well as recordkeeping and reporting
requirements consistent with Federal regulations and the CAA.
    GenOn's compliance with the 2006 Consent Decree, the requirements
of which are reiterated in the 2011 Consent Decree, have resulted in
significant annual emission reduction benefits because of the shift to
natural gas during the ozone season. In 2005, Chalk Point Units
3 and 4 emitted 3, 978 tons per year (TPY) of
NOX, 744 TPY of PM, and 12,379 TPY of sulfur oxides
(SOX). In 2008, as a result of compliance with the 2006
Consent Decree, the requirements of which are reiterated in the 2011
Consent Decree, Chalk Point Units 3 and 4 emitted 446
TPY of NOX, 49 TPY of PM, and 244 TPY of sulfur oxides
(SOX), thereby reducing annual emissions by 3,532 TPY, 695
TPY, and 12,135 TPY, respectively. The additional provision of the 2011
Consent Decree that requires Chalk Point Units 3 and
4 to maximize the use of natural gas during the non-ozone
season will result in even further reductions of NOX, PM,
and SOX and further reductions in visible emissions.

III. Final Action

    EPA's review of the SIP revisions submitted by MDE on October 12,
2011 indicates that they strengthen the SIP requirements applicable to
Chalk Point; result in significant emission reductions of
NOX, PM, SOX and visible emissions; and meet all
applicable Federal regulations and the CAA. The SIP revisions to remove
the 1978 and 1979 Consent Orders for Chalk Point are approvable as they
have been superseded by the more stringent 2011 Consent Decree.
Therefore, EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by MDE on
October 12, 2011. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if
adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on July 3, 2012
without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 4,
2012. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 July 3, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking.
    This action to approve a 2011 Consent Decree between MDE and the
GenOn to reduce particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides
(SOX), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from Chalk Point
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entries for Potomac Electric Company (PEPCO)--Chalk
Point Units 1 and 2 and Potomac Electric Company
(PEPCO)--Chalk Point.
0
b. Adding an entry for the GenOn Chalk Point Generating Station as the
last entry in the table.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) EPA approved state source-specific requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State effective
         Name of source            Permit No./type         date        EPA approval date  Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
GenOn Chalk Point Generating     The 2011 Consent           3/10/11   5/4/12 [Insert      Docket No. 52.1070(d).
 Station.                         Decree for Chalk                     page number where   The SIP approval
                                  Point.                               the document        includes specific
                                                                       begins].            provisions of the
                                                                                2011 Consent Decree
                                                                                for which the State
                                                                                of Maryland requested
                                                                                approval on October
                                                                                12, 2011.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-10470 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 52777]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369] (Formerly Docket No. 2007D-0168)

Draft Guidance for Industry on Bioequivalence Recommendations for
Risperidone Injection; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled ``Draft
Guidance on Risperidone.'' The guidance provides specific
recommendations on the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support
abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for risperidone injection.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by October 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris Andre, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish
Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of May 31, 2007 (72 FR 30388), FDA
announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled
``Bioequivalence Recommendations for Specific Products,'' which
explained the process that would be used to make product-specific
bioequivalence (BE) recommendations available to the public on FDA's
Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm. As
described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to
develop and disseminate product-specific BE recommendations and to
provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment
on those recommendations. FDA finalized that guidance and announced its
availability in the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33311).
This notice announces the availability of revised draft BE
recommendations for risperidone injection.
    New drug application 021346 for Risperdal Consta (risperidone)
Long-Acting Injection was initially approved by FDA in October 2003. In
February 2010, FDA issued a draft guidance for industry on BE
recommendations for generic risperidone injection (Draft BE
Recommendations for Risperidone Injection). FDA is now issuing a
revised version of the Draft BE Recommendations for Risperidone
Injection (Revised Draft BE Recommendations).
    In February 2011, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and
Development, L.L.C. submitted a citizen petition requesting that FDA
require that any ANDA referencing Risperdal Consta (risperidone) Long-
Acting Injection meet certain requirements, including requirements
related to demonstrating BE (Docket No. FDA-2011-P-0086). FDA is
reviewing the issues raised in the petition. FDA will consider any
comments on the Revised Draft BE Recommendations in responding to the
citizen petition.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the design
of BE studies to support ANDAs for risperidone injection. It does not
create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate
to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such
approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding
this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 21, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-20696 Filed 8-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 63175-63176]
[DOCID:fr08no07-46]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0572; FRL-8493-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Information Collection in Support
of EPA's Stewardship Program for Nanoscale Materials; EPA ICR No.
2250.01, OMB Control No. 2070-NEW

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection.
The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the
information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 10,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2007-0572 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

Document Control Office (DCO), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 7407T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Cunningham, Director,
Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 7408-M, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 12, 2007 (72 FR 38079), EPA sought comments on the
proposed new ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received four
comments during the comment period, which are addressed in the ICR. Any
additional comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and
OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0572, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person inspection at the OPPT Docket

in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Title: Information Collection in Support of EPA's Stewardship
Program for Nanoscale Materials.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2250.01, OMB Control No. 2070-NEW.
    ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
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 OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or

by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA will initiate a voluntary information collection to
assemble all known or reasonably ascertainable information from
manufacturers, importers, and processors of nanoscale materials who are
participating in the voluntary Stewardship Program for Nanoscale
Materials. EPA will also collaborate with participating manufacturers,
importers, and processors of nanoscale materials, and other
stakeholders in an effort to generate more detailed information of
certain specific nanoscale materials. Under this second effort OPPT and
program participants will work together to generate data and analyses
that will more fully characterize certain nanoscale materials and to
increase understanding of the environmental health and safety
implications of manufactured nanoscale materials.
    Responses to this collection of information are voluntary. This
data collection will facilitate and support EPA's voluntary Stewardship
Program for Nanoscale Materials and complement EPA's new and existing
chemical programs under TSCA. These data will also help provide a
firmer scientific foundation for regulatory decisions by encouraging
the development of key scientific information and appropriate risk
management practices for nanoscale chemical substances.
    Burden Statement: The annual public burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average about 154 hours per response for
the Basic NMSP, and 2,500 hours for the In-Depth NMSP, based on 240
responses for the Basic NMSP and 15 responses for the In-Depth NMSP
over the three year approval period. Burden means the total time,
effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Manufacturers, importers, and
processors of nanoscale materials who are participating in the
voluntary Stewardship Program for Nanoscale Materials.
    Estimated No. of Respondents: 615.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 24,844 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Labor Costs: $1,315,240.
    Changes in Burden Estimates: This is a new information collection
request. The burden associated with responses to this new information
collection reflects an increase of 24,844 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden from that currently in the OMB inventory. This
increase represents a program change.

    Dated: November 2, 2007.
Joseph A. Sierra,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E7-21935 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 32648-32649]
[DOCID:fr13jn07-68]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0262; FRL-8078-9]

Federal Plan for Certification of Restricted Use Pesticide
Applicators in Navajo Indian Country; Notice of Implementation; and
Announcement of Availability of Form to Request Pesticide Applicator
Certification in Navajo Indian Country

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of February 3, 2006, EPA issued the
notice of intent to implement a federal program to certify applicators
of restricted use pesticides (RUPs) in Navajo Indian Country. The
program will be implemented by EPA Region 9, located in San Francisco,
CA. In the notice, EPA solicited comments from the public on EPA's
intent to implement a federal certification plan in Navajo Indian
Country and on its proposed Federal Plan for Certification of
Restricted Use Pesticides in Navajo Indian Country (federal plan). No
comments were received and EPA hereby implements the federal plan.
Applicators who currently purchase and/or apply RUPs in Navajo Indian
Country will have until October 11, 2007 to become certified by EPA.
After that date, applicators of RUPs must hold the appropriate EPA
certification to purchase and/or apply in Navajo Indian Country.
Failure to hold the appropriate certification after October 11, 2007
may result in federal enforcement action in accordance with section
12(a)(2)(F) of FIFRA. This notice also serves to announce the form (EPA
Form 8500-17-N) EPA will use for pesticide applicators seeking
certification in Navajo Indian Country. Pesticide applicators seeking
certification to use RUPs in Navajo Indian Country must complete this
form and submit it to EPA Region 9 at the location listed under
ADDRESSES.

ADDRESSES: Persons should submit EPA Form 8500-17-N to: Pesticide
Applicator Certification Program, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., (CED-5), San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    EPA Form 8500-17-N is available from the sources identified under
Unit I. It may also be printed from EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/applicators.htm
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabiola Estrada, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., (CED-5), San Francisco,
CA 94105-3901; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    The final federal plan, related documents, and the application form
(EPA Form 8500-17-N) are available:
    1. By mail: Fabiola Estrada, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., (CED-5), San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    2. In person: Copies of these documents may be examined at the
following locations from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Thursday, excluding legal holidays.
    i. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Library,
75 Hawthorne St., (CED-5), San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    ii. Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide
Program, Window Rock Blvd., Building  F004-103 (ATD), Window
Rock, AZ 86515. Contact: Glenna Lee, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This notice applies to individuals and businesses who are seeking
certification to apply RUPs as defined by EPA in Navajo Indian Country.
This action may, however, be of interest to those involved in
agriculture and anyone involved with the distribution and application
of pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is implementing the Federal Plan for Certification of
Restricted Use Pesticide Applicators in Navajo Indian Country. There
were no public comments submitted regarding the Federal Register notice
of February 3, 2006 (70 FR 5838) (FRL-7682-4).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Certification, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 4, 2007.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. E7-11322 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2915-2917]
[FR Doc No: 2010-704]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61317; File No. SR-ISE-2009-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Data
Fees

January 8, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On November 25, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its Schedule of Fees.
Notice of the proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 1, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61086 (December 8,
2009), 74 FR 64783 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to (1) increase
the annual subscription rate for the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile, (2)
adopt subscription fees for the sale of three

new market data offerings, all of which are based on the ISE Open/Close
Trade Profile, and (3) increase the annual subscription and ad-hoc
request rates for ISE's Historical Options Tick Data.

1. ISE Open/Close Trade Profile

    ISE currently sells a market data offering comprised of the entire
opening and closing trade data of ISE listed options of both customers
and firms (``ISE Open/Close Trade Profile'').\4\ The data is compiled
and formatted by ISE as an end of day file. This market data offering
is currently available to both members and non-members on an annual
subscription basis.\5\ ISE represents that it has added additional
fields to this offering over the last two years and therefore, the
costs of gathering and storing the data underlying the ISE Open/Close
Trade Profile have increased. As a result, ISE now proposes to increase
the subscription rate for both members and non-members to $750 per
month, effective January 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56254 (August 15,
2007), 72 FR 47104 (August 22, 2007) (approving SR-ISE-2007-70).
    \5\ The current subscription rate for both members and non-
members is $600 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. New Open/Close Market Data Products

    The Exchange proposes to expand its suite of ISE Open/Close Trade
Profile market data offerings with three new products.
a. ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Intraday
    The ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Intraday offering uses the same
process as that used for the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile. The ISE
Open/Close Trade Profile Intraday has the same trade-related fields
contained in the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile. The ISE Open/Close Trade
Profile Intraday file contains data that is updated at 10-minute
intervals throughout the trading day. ISE proposes to charge both
members and non-members $2,000 per month on an annual subscription
basis.
b. Historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Intraday
    The Historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Intraday offering is a
compilation of the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Intraday files. ISE
proposes to sell Historical ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Intraday on an
ad-hoc basis. An ad-hoc request can be for any number of months,
quarters or years for which the data is available. Members and non-
members will be able to purchase this data by paying a one-time fee of
$1,000 per month, $2,000 per quarter or $8,000 per year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, a subscriber that wants to purchase data for
August 2009 would pay $1,000; a subscriber that wants to purchase
data for July, August and September of 2009 would pay $2,000; a
subscriber that wants to purchase data for all twelve months of 2009
would pay $8,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. ISE Open/Close Trade Profile and ISE Open/Close Trade Profile
Intraday
    As noted above, the Exchange already sells the ISE Open/Close Trade
Profile end of day data. To incentivize current subscribers of ISE
Open/Close Trade Profile to also subscribe to the ISE Open/Close Trade
Profile Intraday offering, the Exchange proposes to offer a discounted
subscription rate. Subscribers to both the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile
and the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Intraday will pay an annual
subscription rate of $2,500 per month.
    All of the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile market data offerings,
including the new products proposed by the Exchange, are compiled and
formatted by ISE and sold as a zipped file.

3. Historical Options Tick Data

    ISE currently creates market data that consists of options quotes
and orders that are generated by its members and all trades that are
executed on the Exchange. ISE also produces a Best Bid/Offer, or BBO,
with the aggregate size from all outstanding quotes and orders at the
top price level, or the ``top of the book.'' This data is formatted
according to Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') specification
and sent to OPRA for redistribution. OPRA processes ISE data along with
the same data sets from the other six options exchanges and creates a
National BBO, or ``NBBO,'' from all seven options exchanges.
    ISE also captures the OPRA tick data \7\ and makes it available as
an ``end of day'' file \8\ or as a ``historical'' file \9\ for ISE
members and non-ISE members alike. ISE has data available from June
2005 through the present month. ISE currently charges all subscribers
of Historical Options Tick Data $1,500 per month per firm on an annual
subscription basis. For ad-hoc requests, ISE charges $85 per day, with
a minimum order size of $1,000 plus a processing fee to pay for hard
drives and shipping. ISE also currently charges a processing fee of
$499 per order for up to 400 Giga Bytes (GB). An order that exceeds 400
GB is currently charged an additional $399 for up to another 400
GB.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange collects this data throughout each trading day
and at the end of each trading day, the Exchange compresses the data
and uploads it onto a server. Once the data is loaded onto the
server, it is then made available to subscribers.
    \8\ An end of day file refers to OPRA tick data for a trading
day that is distributed prior to the opening of the next trading
day. An end of day file is made available to subscribers as soon as
practicable at the end of each trading day on an on-going basis
pursuant to an annual subscription or through an ad-hoc request.
    \9\ An end of day file that is distributed after the start of
the next trading day is called a historical file. A historical file
is available to customers for a pre-determined date range by ad-hoc
requests only.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53212 (February 2,
2006), 71 FR 6803 (February 9, 2006) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Establishing Fees for
Historical Options Tick Market Data) (SR-ISE-2006-07); and 53390
(February 28, 2006), 71 FR 11457 (March 7, 2006) (Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Establishing Fees for
Historical Options Tick Market Data for Non-Members) (SR-ISE-2006-
08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to increase the annual subscription rate
to $2,000 per month per firm. For ad-hoc requests, the Exchange
proposes to increase the rate to $120 per day. The minimum order size
of $1,000 will remain unchanged as will the processing fees of $499 and
$399. As the size of the data has increased since the Exchange first
introduced this product, the Exchange is also increasing the size
allowance for ad-hoc requests from 400 Giga Bytes to 1.5 Terabytes
(TB). Pursuant to this proposed rule change, for ad-hoc requests, the
Exchange will charge a processing fee of $499 per order for up to 1.5
TB. An order that exceeds 1.5 TB will be charged an additional $399 for
up to another 1.5 TB. These fee changes will be made effective by the
Exchange on January 4, 2010.
    The Exchange's market research indicates that OPRA tick data is
primarily used by market participants in the financial services
industry for back-testing trading models, post-trade analysis,
compliance purposes and analyzing time and sales information. This
market data offering provides both ISE members and non-members with a
choice to subscribe to a service that provides a daily file on an on-
going basis (end of day file), or simply request data on an ad-hoc
basis for a pre-determined date range (historical file).

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\11\ In particular, the

Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Commission also
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The Commission further believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \14\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because ISE's instant proposal relates to the distribution of non-
core data, the Commission will apply the market-based approach set
forth in the Commission's approval of a NYSE Arca market data
proposal.\15\ The Commission believes that ISE was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal,
including the level of fees.\16\ Specifically, the Exchange has a
compelling need to attract order flow to maintain its share of trading
volume, imposing pressure on the Exchange to act reasonably in
establishing fees for these data offerings.\17\ Further, ISE is
constrained in pricing these data offerings because of the availability
of alternatives to purchasing ISE's market data products.\18\ Finally,
the Commission does not believe that a substantial countervailing basis
exists to support a finding that the proposed fees fail to meet the
requirements of the Act or the rules thereunder. The Commission did not
receive any comments on the terms of the proposal. Further, the fees
charged will be the same for all market participants, and therefore do
not unreasonably discriminate among market participants. In addition,
ISE represents that it has enhanced its Open/Close Trade Profile and
Historical Options Ticket Data offerings, and that the increase ``is
nominal in light of the increased costs borne by the Exchange for the
enhancements.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \16\ The Commission has previously made a finding that the
options industry is subject to significant competitive forces. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59949 (May 20, 2009), 74 FR
25593 (May 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-97) (order approving ISE's
proposal to establish fees for a real-time depth of market data
offering).
    \17\ ISE states that it has a compelling need to attract order
flow from market participants in order to maintain its share of
trading volume. ISE further states that this compelling need to
attract order flow imposes significant pressure on ISE to act
reasonably in setting the fees for its market data offerings,
particularly given that the market participants that will pay such
fees often will be the same market participants from whom ISE must
attract order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers
that control the handling of a large volume of customer and
proprietary order flow. ISE states that, given the portability of
order flow from one exchange to another, any exchange that sought to
charge unreasonably high market data fees would risk alienating many
of the same customers on whose orders it depends for competitive
survival. See Notice, supra note 3, at 64785.
    \18\ For example, the Exchange represents that all of the
information available in the Historical Options Tick Data product is
available from the core data feed offered by the Options Price
Reporting Authority. Further, the Exchange represents that CBOE is a
potential competitor because it also sells an Open/Close market data
product. See Notice, supra note 3, at 64785.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 64784.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2009-103), be and hereby is
approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-704 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10810-10812]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1058; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-39]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace;
Multiple Minnesota Towns

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at multiple Minnesota Towns and revokes the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Silver Bay Municipal Airport, Silver Bay, MN. This action is the result
of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of multiple non-
federal non-directional beacons (NDBs) within Minnesota. The names and
geographic coordinates of various airports are also being updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 17, 2021. The Director of the Federal

Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at: Aitkin Municipal Airport-Steve Kurtz Field, Aitkin, MN;
Appleton Municipal Airport, Appleton, MN; Benson Municipal Airport,
Benson, MN; Cambridge Municipal Airport, Cambridge, MN; Cloquet Carlton
County Airport, Cloquet, MN; Crookston Municipal Airport Kirkwood
Field, Crookston, MN; Glencoe Municipal Airport, Glencoe, MN; and Mora
Municipal Airport, Mora, MN, to support instrument flight rule
operations at these airports; and revokes the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Silver Bay
Municipal Airport, Silver Bay, MN, as this airspace is no longer
required.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 76497; November 30, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-1058
to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at multiple Minnesota Towns and revoke the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Silver Bay
Municipal Airport, Silver Bay, MN. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.5-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of
Aitkin Municipal Airport-Steve Kurtz Field, Aitkin, MN; removes the
Aitkin NDB and associated extension from the airspace legal
description; and updates the name (previously Aitkin Municipal Airport)
and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Appleton Municipal Airport, Appleton, MN, by removing
the extension northwest of the airport as it is no longer required; and
updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of
Benson Municipal Airport, Benson, MN; and updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of
Cambridge Municipal Airport, Cambridge, MN; and updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of
Cloquet Carlton County Airport, Cloquet, MN; and updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of
Crookston Municipal Airport Kirkwood Field, Crookston, MN; and updates
the name (previously Crookston Municipal Kirkwood Field) and geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Glencoe Municipal Airport, Glencoe, MN, by removing the
Glencoe NDB and associated extension from the airspace legal
description; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 6.5-mile) radius of
Mora Municipal Airport, Mora, MN; removes the Mora NDB and associated
extension from the airspace legal description; and updates the
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    And revokes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Silver Bay Municipal Airport, Silver Bay, MN, as
the instrument procedures at this airport have been cancelled and the
airspace is no longer required.
    This action is the result of airspace reviews caused by the
decommissioning of the Aitkin, Appleton, Benson, Cambridge, Cloquet,
Crookston, Glencoe, Mora, and Silver Bay non-federal NDBs which
provided navigation information for the instrument procedures these
airports.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is

published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Aitkin, MN [Amended]

Aitkin Municipal Airport-Steve Kurtz Field, MN
    (Lat. 46[deg]32'54'' N, long. 93[deg]40'36'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Aitkin Municipal Airport-Steve Kurtz
Field.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Appleton, MN [Amended]

Appleton Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 45[deg]13'39'' N, long. 96[deg]00'16'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Appleton Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Benson, MN [Amended]

Benson Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 45[deg]19'55'' N, long. 95[deg]39'02'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Benson Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Cambridge, MN [Amended]

Cambridge Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 45[deg]33'27'' N, long. 93[deg]15'51'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Cambridge Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Cloquet, MN [Amended]

Cloquet Carlton County Airport, MN
    (Lat. 46[deg]42'04'' N, long. 92[deg]30'13'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Cloquet Carlton County Airport.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Crookston, MN [Amended]

Crookston Municipal Airport Kirkwood Field, MN
    (Lat. 47[deg]50'30'' N, long. 96[deg]37'17'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Crookston Municipal Airport Kirkwood
Field.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Glencoe, MN [Amended]

Glencoe Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 44[deg]45'22'' N, long. 94[deg]04'53'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Glencoe Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Mora, MN [Amended]

Mora Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 45[deg]53'31'' N long. 93[deg]16'23'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Mora Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Silver Bay, MN [Remove]

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 17, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-03518 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22894-22896]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0367]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone for Marine Events, Delaware River; Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone on the waters of the Delaware River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The regulation will restrict vessel traffic on a portion of the
Delaware River from operating during a fireworks display on June 30,
2018 from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. This regulation is necessary to
protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated
with a fireworks display. During the enforcement periods, no vessel may
enter in or transit this regulated area without approval from the
Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0367 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Edmund Ofalt, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay,
Waterways Management Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On 1 March 2018, the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation notified
the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from
9:30 to 11:30 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The fireworks will be launched
from a barge in the Delaware River off Penn's Landing in Philadelphia.
Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of
fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other
debris. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this
display would be a safety concern.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event.
The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Delaware Bay proposes to establish a safety zone on a
portion of the Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA to ensure the safety of
persons, vessels and the public during the event. The proposed safety
zone includes navigable all waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to
Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, bounded from shoreline to shoreline,
bounded on the south by a line running east to west from points along
the shoreline commencing at latitude 39[deg]56'31.2'' N, longitude
075[deg]08'28.1'' W; thence westward to latitude 39[deg]56'29.1'' N,
longitude 075[deg]07'56.5' W, and bounded on the north by the Benjamin
Franklin Bridge where it crosses the Delaware River. The safety zone
would be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June
30, 2018. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end
of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be
unable to transit the safety zone for the duration of the fireworks
event however; this safety zone will impact a small designated area of
the Delaware River, in Philadelphia, PA, for a two hour period during
the fireworks event. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety
zone; under the regulation vessel operators may request permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    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.
    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. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting for two
hours that would prohibit entry on portions of the Delaware River to
promote public and maritime safety during a fireworks display. Normally
such actions are categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead
to the

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0367 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0367   Safety Zone; Delaware River; Philadelphia, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Penns Landing, Philadelphia,
PA, bounded from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line
running east to west from points along the shoreline commencing at
latitude 39[deg]56'31.2'' N, longitude 075[deg]08'28.1'' W; thence
westward to latitude 39[deg]56'29.1'' N, longitude 075[deg]07'56.5'' W,
and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge where it
crosses the Delaware River.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard petty
officer, warrant or commissioned officer on board a Coast Guard vessel
or on board a federal, state, or local law enforcement vessel assisting
the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To request permission to enter the safety zone, contact the
COTP or the COTP's representative on marine band radio VHF-FM channel
16 (156.8 MHz) or<PHONE_NUMBER>. All persons and

vessels in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9:30
p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 30, 2018.

    Dated: May 11, 2018.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware.
[FR Doc. 2018-10486 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P