[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32608-32612]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0214]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish permanent safety zones
for annually recurring marine events in the Coast Guard Marine Safety
Unit Duluth Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. The safety zones in this
proposed rule are needed to protect both spectators and participants
from the hazards associated with the events. During the enforcement
period of the safety zones, persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transitioning through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within
the zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or designated
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0214 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries

accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Judson Coleman, Chief of Waterways Management
Marine Safety Unit Duluth, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Extension 111 or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara
Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2013-0214), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2013-0214] In the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

2. 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,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-0214) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

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

4. Public Meeting

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

B. Basis and Purpose

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to establish necessary safety
zones for recurring events. This rule is being proposed in order to
safeguard against the hazards associated with annual marine events
taking place in the Duluth Captain of the Port Zone.
    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule proposes to establish 8 new safety zones in 33 CFR Part
165 for annual marine events in the Marine Safety Unit Duluth Captain
of the Port (COTP) Zone. These events include fireworks displays for
the 4th of July holiday, specifically the Duluth fourth festival,
Cornucopia fireworks, Ashland fireworks and the Madeline Island
fireworks, and other historically recurring marine events, including
the Lake Superior Dragon Boat Festival (LSDBF), The Superior Man
Triathlon, and the Point to LaPointe swim.
    As large numbers of spectator vessels are expected to congregate in
the location of these events, the safety zones in this proposed rule
are needed to protect both spectators and participants from the hazards
associated with the events. During the enforcement period of the safety
zones, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transitioning
through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within the zone unless
specifically authorized by the COTP or designated representative. The
Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state and local agencies
in the enforcement of these regulations.
    Certain safety zones are listed without known dates or times. The
Coast Guard will give notice of the enforcement of these safety zones
by all appropriate means to the effected segments of the public,
including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in
accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also
include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local
Notice to Mariners.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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. It is not deemed ``significant'' under
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We conclude that this proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have
minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies,
will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients,
and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. Overall, we expect
the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal and that a full
Regulatory Evaluation is not necessary.

2. Small Entities

    Under The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit or anchor in the safety zones during the
enforcement periods.
    This proposed safety zone will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: the safety zones will be of limited size and of short
duration; vessels that can safely do so may navigate in all other
portions of the waterway except for the areas designated as safety
zones; and these safety zones have been promulgated in the past with
zero public comments submitted. Additionally, before the enforcement
period, the Coast Guard will issue notice of the time and location of
each safety zone through a Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
    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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this 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 the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 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.

4. 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.).

5. 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.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

10. 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.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone and is therefore categorically excluded
under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. 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 measure, 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; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.943 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.943  Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of
the Port Duluth zone.

    (a) Safety Zones. The following areas are designated safety zones:
    (1) Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks; Houghton, MI.
    (i) Location. All waters of the Keweenaw Waterway bounded by the
arc of a circle with a 300-foot radius from the fireworks launch site
with its center in position 47[deg]07'28.35'' N, 088[deg]35'01.78'' W.
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. This event historically occurs in
mid June. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, will
establish enforcement dates that will be announced with a Notice of
Enforcement and marine information broadcast.
    (2) Lake Superior Dragon Boat Festival Fireworks; Superior, WI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Superior Bay, WI within a 150-foot
radius with its center at 46[deg]43'23.5164'' N, 092[deg]03'45.1944''
W.
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. This event historically occurs in
late August. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, will
establish enforcement dates that will be announced with a Notice of
Enforcement and marine information broadcast.
    (3) Duluth Fourth Fest Fireworks; Duluth, MN.
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin
Northern Section within a 900-foot radius of position 46[deg]46'19'' N,
092[deg]06'11'' W.
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. This event historically occurs on
or around the 4th of July week. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety
Unit Duluth, will establish enforcement dates that will be announced
with a Notice of Enforcement and marine information broadcast.
    (4) Cornucopia Fireworks; Cornucopia, WI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Siskiwit Bay bounded by a circle with a
300-foot radius surrounding the fireworks launch site with its center
in position 46[deg]51'35'' N, 091[deg]06'10'' W.
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. This event historically occurs on
or around the 4th of July week. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety
Unit Duluth, will establish enforcement dates that will be announced
with a Notice of Enforcement and marine information broadcast.
    (5) LaPointe Fireworks; LaPointe, WI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Lake Superior bounded by the arc of a
circle with a 375-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with its
center in position 46[deg]46'40.1'' N, 090[deg]47'22'' W.
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. This event historically occurs on
or around the 4th of July week. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety
Unit Duluth, will establish enforcement dates that will be announced
with a Notice of Enforcement and marine information broadcast.
    (6) Ashland Fireworks; Ashland, WI.
    (i) Location. All waters of Chequamegon Bay bounded by the arc of a
circle with a 600-foot diameter from the fireworks launch site with its
center in position 46[deg]35.50' N, 090[deg]53.0' W.
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. This event historically occurs on
or around the 4th of July week. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety
Unit Duluth, will establish enforcement dates that will be announced
with a Notice of Enforcement and marine information broadcast.
    (7) Point to LaPointe Swim; LaPointe, WI.
    (i) Location. All waters between Bayfield, WI and Madeline Island,
WI within an imaginary line created by the following coordinates:
46[deg]48'50.97'' N, 090[deg]48'44.28'' W, moving southeast to
46[deg]46'44.9'' N, 090[deg]47'33.21'' W, then moving northeast to
46[deg]46'52.51'' N 090[deg]47'17.14'' W, then moving northwest to
46[deg]49'3.23'' N, 090[deg]48'25.12'' W and finally running back to
the starting point.
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. This event historically occurs in
early August. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, will
establish enforcement dates that will be announced with a Notice of
Enforcement and marine information broadcast.
    (8) Superior Man Triathlon; Superior, WI.
    (i) Location. All waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin, Northern
Section, including the Duluth Entry encompassed in an imaginary line
beginning at point 46[deg]46'36.1236'' N, 092[deg]06'06.987'' W,
running southeast to 46[deg]46'32.7534'' N, 092[deg]06'01.7382'' W,
running northeast to 46[deg]46'45.9228'' N, 092[deg]05'45.1818'' W,
running northwest to 46[deg]46'49.4718'' N, 092[deg]05'49.349'' W and
finally running southwest back to the starting point.
    (ii) Enforcement date and time. This event historically occurs in
late August. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, will
establish enforcement dates that will be announced with a Notice of
Enforcement and marine information broadcast.
    (b) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Marine Safety
Unit Duluth, or the designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic except as
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, or
the designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Marine Safety Unit Duluth, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer who has been designated to act on behalf of the Captain
of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth. The on-scene representative of
the Captain of the Port,

Marine Safety Unit Duluth, will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast
Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit
Duluth, or the 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, Marine Safety Unit Duluth,
or the designated on-scene representative to obtain permission to do
so. Vessel operators given authorization to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, or the on-scene
representative.

    Dated: April 25, 2013.
K.R.Bryan,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit
Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2013-12887 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 7)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1512]
[DOCID:fr11ja11-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1047; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-37]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Savannah, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Savannah, TN. The
Pinhook Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned and new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) have been developed for
Savannah-Hardin County Airport. This action enhances the safety and
airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 10, 2011. 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 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P. O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 26, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace 700 feet above
the surface, at Savannah, TN (75 FR 65584) Docket No. FAA-2010-1047.
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 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, 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.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to support new SIAPs developed at Savannah-Hardin County
Airport, Savannah, TN. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the
decommissioning of the Pinhook NDB and cancellation of the NDB
approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAAs Aeronautical Products.
    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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the 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 Class E airspace at Savannah, TN.

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(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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010, is amended
as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Savannah, TN [AMENDED]

Savannah-Hardin County Airport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]10'13'' N., long. 88[deg]13'00'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Savannah-Hardin County Airport and
within 3.7 miles each side of the 008[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.9 miles north of the
Savannah-Hardin County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 10, 2010.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-202 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Appendix D13

Attachment 2: Estimated Emission Reduction Calculations to Support
Additional Control Measures and Benefits Not Included in the Regional
Modeling

New Jersey is working to propose rules that will produce additional
emission reductions that were not included in the regional modeling.
These measures include federal, regional initiatives, State initiatives,
and additional benefits not included in earlier calculations of
benefits.  The estimated additional benefits from these measures are
listed in Table D13.3 and the measures and more detailed calculations
are presented in the following section.  These additional benefits
provide further confidence that New Jersey will attain the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by 2009.

1.	Regional - New Refinery Rules

New Jersey is preparing to propose rules to reduce emissions from
refineries from fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs), leaks detection
and repair (LDAR), flares, and process heaters and boilers.  The largest
categories of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from refineries are
from boilers and process heaters.  Controlling boilers and process
heaters will result in approximately 40 percent (%) in NOx emissions
using Ultra-low NOx burners (ULNB) or selective catalytic reduction
(SCR).  The 2002 inventory for this category is approximately 8.2 tons
per day (tpd) and a 40 percent reduction will yield an emission benefit
of about 3.15 tpd of NOx.  In addition, controlling VOC emissions from
flares will result in the largest reduction of VOC emissions for
refineries.  The 2002 VOC emissions inventory for flares is 1.4 tpd and
installing Flare Gas Recovery (FGR) systems will result in an emission
benefit of approximately 0.78 tpd.  In total, the control measures for
refineries will result in an emission benefit of 3.28 tpd of NOx and
1.55 tpd of VOC.

New Jersey has two major point source facilities that will be subject to
the proposed rule, one in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut
nonattainment area and one in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia
nonattainment area.  The other refineries in the State are subject to
similar control measures as a result of Administrative Consent Orders
(ACOs).  The Table 1 below shows the proposed control measures, the 2002
actual emissions, and the estimated reduction for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and NOx by 2009.

Table 1: Estimated Reductions from Refineries (tons per day)

Proposed Control Measure	% NOx Reduction*	NOx

2002 Emissions (tpd)

	Estimated NOx

2009 Benefits (tpd) 	% VOC Reduction*	VOC

2002 Emissions (tpd)

	Estimated VOC

2009

Benefits (tpd)

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU)	40%	4.6	-**	85%	0.37	0.31

Leak Detection & Repair (LDAR)	-	-	-	50%	1.1	0.47

Flares	36%	0.37	0.13	55%	1.4	0.78

Boilers &  Process Heaters	40%	8.2	3.15	-	-	-

Total	-	13.17	3.28	-	2.87	1.55

*Percent reductions are based on the information provided in the NJDEP
white papers referenced in this section.  The NJDEP white papers
calculated emission benefits in tons per year.  In this SIP, those
emission benefits were converted to tons per day.

**NOx reductions are expected post-2009.

2.	Regional - High Electrical Demand Day Initiative

As part of the High Electrical Demand Day (HEDD) Initiative, New Jersey
has committed to reduce NOx emissions in those electrical generating
units that primarily operate on high electrical demand days by 19.8 tons
per day by 2009.  As of June 13, 2007, New Jersey joins the following
OTC States in signing the Memorandum of Understanding regarding this
initiative: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  A copy of the
Memorandum of Understanding can be found in Appendix C1.

In order to determine the emission reductions for New Jersey, emissions
comparisons were made between an average day in June 2005, and a very
high electric demand day in July 2005 that showed a 145% increase in New
Jersey electric generator NOx emissions and five 8-hour ozone
exceedances.  Estimated emissions from the 33 HEDD combustion turbines
which operated on the high demand day without water injection were
reduced by 40%.  Forty percent reduction is what would be generally
achievable by the installation of water injection.  Emissions from the
five (5) HEDD boilers that were operating without selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) were reduced by 30%.  A thirty percent
reduction is what would be generally achievable by the installation of
SNCR.  Note that this level of control provides an estimate of the
benefits; not all units will be able to meet such reductions.  For 2009,
it is expected that the generators will be submitting plans to achieve
the emission reductions to the State for case-by-case reviews.

The difference between the emissions as originally reported and the
emissions as reduced by the above calculations is 19.8 tons for New
Jersey.  These HEDD emission reductions were estimated to be 13.8 tons
in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and
6.1 tons in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area
based on the location of the HEDD units.  Emission reduction estimates
for the States that share a multi-state nonattainment area with New
Jersey are listed Table D13.3.

3.	State - New Jersey Diesel Idling Rule Changes Calculations

Changes to Subchapter 14, Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from
Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles, were proposed in 2006 and adopted in May
2007.  Emission reductions will be realized through implementation of
these rule changes.  These changes included clarifying the language on
some exemptions; eliminating other exemptions, such as sun setting the
sleeper berth exemption in 2010; and other associated changes such as
enforcement, education, outreach, and legislative changes.  There are
both NOx and PM benefits for this rule.  The NOx benefits calculations
are included in this Appendix.

Methodology:

Emission benefits were estimated by starting with a published value for
the percent of heavy duty truck emissions that result from idling,
applying an assumed idling reduction percent and applying this to the
New Jersey 2009 inventory emissions for heavy duty highway trucks.

Idling emissions from on-road (class 8) heavy duty highway trucks
represent approximately 7.8% of total emissions.

Due to the inclusion of other heavy duty trucks in Subchapter 14
(classes 3-7, in addition to class 8 mentioned above), the amount of
emissions attributable to idling was increased from 7.8% to 10%.

Assuming that New Jersey’s actions will reduce idling by 50%, overall
emissions from heavy duty highway trucks will be reduced to 5% (50% of
10%).

This 50% reduction in idling from Class 3-8 vehicles is estimated to be
achieved from the following sources:

Subchapter 14 rule revision (which includes eliminating / tightening
many exemptions, the phasing-in of idling alternates such as auxiliary
power units and sun setting the sleeper berth exemption in 2010),

Increased enforcement through a legislative language change (N.J.S.A.
39:3-70.2), which allows State and local police to clearly enforce this
rule,

Education and outreach,

Idling sweeps by the Compliance and Enforcement group,

Sales of “No Idling” signs, yielding increased awareness of the
regulation

The 2009 Emissions Inventory (for all on-road diesel heavy duty
vehicles) is 111 tons per summer day NOx.  A 5 % reduction yields
approximately 6 tons per summer day decrease in NOx.  The emission
benefit was allocated as 3 tpsd NOx for the Northern New Jersey/New
York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 3 tpsd NOx for the Southern New
Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area based on vehicles miles traveled
for heavy duty highway trucks.

4.	State - New Jersey Diesel Cutpoint Rule Changes

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is working
toward proposing and adopting in accordance with the New Jersey
Administrative Procedures Act and the New Jersey Air Pollution Control
Act changes to establish more stringent test standards (cutpoints) for
the existing diesel inspection and maintenance (I/M) program.  The
stricter cutpoints will result in additional emission reductions of VOCs
and NOx.  Emission reduction estimates are shown in tons of pollutants
per day.

Table 2: 2009 Statewide Emission Benefits from Proposed Stricter Diesel
I/M Cutpoint Program (Tons/Day)

2009 Emission Benefits from Proposed Stricter Diesel I/M Cutpoint
Program

(Tons/Day)

VOC 	                   0.45

NOx 	                   0.13

The methodology for the estimated benefits of the expected rule is
described in this section.

Estimating inventory reductions due to diesel I/M using the USEPA
MOBILE6 model directly is not possible because MOBILE6 has no diesel I/M
model representation and assumes almost no deterioration of diesel
vehicles.  The USEPA may assume additional in-use deterioration and
mal-performance corrections of diesel vehicles in their future on-road
emission model called Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES).

The NJDEP has developed the following preliminary methodology to
estimate emission benefits for stricter diesel I/M cutpoints.  The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) has documented a series of tables
of Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) emission I/M failure rates and
pollutant specific mal-performance factors.  A mal-performance factor is
the average fraction that emissions increase for vehicles that fail
inspection.  The mal-performance factors used for the New Jersey
methodology were derived from the CARB tables of mal-performance
frequency and effects by model year and vehicle weight class.  The
factors were weighted by model year and vehicle type.  Each criteria
pollutant has its own mal-performance factor.  The preliminary New
Jersey methodology uses: CARB mal-performance factors, New Jersey
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) vehicle miles traveled (VMT), MOBILE6
HDDV emission factors in grams per mile (GPM) for each criteria
pollutant, and the failure/repair rates from the New Jersey diesel I/M
program.

Emission benefits for the existing I/M program are estimated as the sum
of the deterrent benefit and the repair benefit.  It is necessary to use
data collected at the beginning of the New Jersey diesel I/M program and
compare it to data collected after the initial start-up period.  The
deterrent benefit is the product of: the difference between the
pre-enforcement and post-enforcement I/M failure rates, the HDDV VMT,
the mal-performance factors, and the average MOBILE6 HDDV emission
factors.  The repair benefit is the product of: the Diesel Emissions
Inspection Center (DEIC) failure rate, the repair rate, the HDDV VMT,
the mal-performance factors, and the average MOBILE6 HDDV emission
factors.  The repair rate is estimated by adding together: the number of
vehicles repaired during the inspection, the number of vehicles that
passed a violation reinspection, and the number of vehicles that passed
a later inspection.  This sum is divided by the total number of initial
inspection failures (pre-repair fails + violation reinspections) to
obtain the repair rate.

The next step is to estimate the emission benefits of reducing the I/M
diesel cutpoints, i.e., the “secondary implementation.”  When
opacity cutpoints are reduced, the impact (mal-performance factors) of
the secondary implementation must be adjusted from the impact of the
initial I/M program implementation to include only the lower end of the
mal-performance range (marginal emitters).  There will also be a
deterrent benefit associated with the cutpoint change that can be
initially estimated by comparing the roadside inspection data to the
annual DEIC inspection data. Vehicles that arrive for their annual
inspection tend to have necessary maintenance performed prior to
inspection.  Vehicles pulled over at roadside are more likely to be in
normal operational mode; that is, possibly in need of repairs or
maintenance.  The ratio of roadside failure rates to annual DEIC rates
can provide an estimate of the deterrent factor involved in a secondary
implementation.  The actual impact of deterrence will be measurable once
failure rates stabilize a year or two after introduction of the new
cutpoints.

The emission benefits of the cutpoint change are estimated as the sum of
the repair benefits and the deterrent benefits.  The repair benefits are
estimated as the product of: the projected increase in the annual DEIC
failure rate, the repair rate, the secondary implementation
mal-performance factor, the HDDV VMT, and the average MOBILE6 HDDV
emission factors.  The secondary implementation mal-performance factors
were derived by adjusting the mal-performance factors by the fractional
change in cutpoints for each model year range.  The deterrent benefits
were estimated by multiplying the repair benefits by the ratio of the
roadside failure rate to annual DEIC failure rates for the cutpoint
changes.

The following is a summary of the equations used for the New Jersey
methodology.

Estimation of the Emission Benefits for the Current Diesel I/M Program

Diesel I/M Benefits = Diesel I/M Repair Benefit (DRB) + Diesel I/M
Initial Deterrent Benefit (DDB)

Diesel I/M Repair Benefit (DRB) Estimation:

DRB  =  Failure Rate *  Repair Rate * NJ Average Daily HDDV VMT  *  NJ
HDDV Average Emission Factor From Mobile 6  *  Mal-performance Factor

Failure Rate = DEIC initial fail rates within a calendar year. (CY 2002)

Repair Rate = (RV + V1 + RIP) / IVF

	where:

	RV = number of repaired vehicles (pre-repair fail/post-repair pass
during the initial inspection)

V1 = number of violation reinspections (pre-repair pass only)

RIP = number of reinspection passes (initially failed vehicles, tracked
to a post-repair pass on a later inspection)

IVF = number of Initial Inspection Vehicle Fails (Pre repair fails +
Violation reinspections*)

	*Pre-repair pass only – A portion of violations came in repaired
prior to inspection, but after the violation.

The data used to derive the fail and repair rates is from the DEIC
periodic inspection database.

The Mal-performance Factor is the average fraction that emissions
increase for vehicles that fail inspection.  The mal-performance factors
used for the New Jersey interim methodology were derived from the CARB
tables of mal-performance frequency and effects by model year and
vehicle weight class.  The factors were weighted by model year and
vehicle type.  Each criteria pollutant has its own mal-performance
factor.

Diesel I/M Initial Deterrent Benefit (DDB) Estimation:

DDB = FRD * DRB

where:

FRD = Failure Rate Differential (ERF1 – ERF2)

ERF1 = pre-enforcement fail rate (actual tested vehicles)

ERF2 = post-enforcement fail rate (actual tested vehicles)

These fail rates are for roadside inspection data, pre and post
enforcement of the I/M program.  Pre-enforcement roadside failure rates
are based on roadside team data from April 1996 to January 1998.

Estimation of Emission Benefits for the Proposed Cutpoint Change

Cutpoint Change Benefit = Repair Benefits Due to Cutpoint Change +
Deterrent Benefits Due to Cutpoint Change

Both the repair and deterrent benefits can be expressed as a HDDV
mileage rate that when multiplied by the NJ HDDV Average Emission Factor
from MOBILE6 results in annual emission benefits.  These mileage rates
are called “Secondary repair mileage” and “Secondary deterrent
mileage” so that:

Cutpoint Change Benefit = (Secondary Repair Mileage + Secondary
Deterrent Mileage) * NJ HDDV Average Emission Factor from MOBILE6

Secondary Repair Mileage = Projected Annual Inspection Failure Rate
Increase * Repair Rate * Secondary Implementation Mal-performance Factor
* NJ Average Daily HDDV VMT

Projected Annual Inspection Failure Rate and Repair Rate are calculated
using data from the DEIC periodic inspection database.  The fail rates
due to the cutpoint changes are based on an analysis of the opacity
data.

Secondary Implementation Mal-performance Factor = Weighted Fleet
Fraction by Model Year Range * Fraction of Opacity Change *
Mal-performance Factor

Fraction of Opacity Change = (Old Cutpoint – New Cutpoint) / Old
Cutpoint

Weighted Fleet Fraction by Model Year Range = Fraction of Fleet summed
from beginning to end of cutpoint range.

Secondary deterrent mileage = Secondary repair mileage * (Ratio of
Annual Inspection failure rate due to the cutpoint changes to Roadside
Failure rate due to the cutpoint change)

5.	State - Municipal Waste Combustors

The NJDEP is considering proposing a NOx standard in the range of 100 to
150 ppm for municipal solid waste combustors (MSW), based upon the
ability of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) to reduce emissions
more than are now being achieved.  New Jersey has five resource recovery
facilities located in the following counties:  Essex, Union, Warren
(Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area), Camden,
and Gloucester (Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area).
There are 13 municipal waste combustors (MWC) at these five facilities.
The NJDEP anticipates that a NOx emission reduction of greater than 100
tons per year (67 tpy for May 1, 2009 through Dec 31, 2009) or 0.27 tons
per day may be possible with this measure.

Table 3: Estimated Reductions from Municipal Waster Combustors

Municipal Solid Waste Plant	Air Flow Rates in Actual Cubic Feet per
Minute (ACFM) 	Air Flow Rates in Dry Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
(DSCFM) 	Pounds per hour using 100 ppm NOx limit	Pounds per hour using
130 ppm NOx limit	Pounds per hour using 150 ppm NOx limit

Essex	 237,900 	60867	44	57	65

Essex	 220,000 	56287	40	52	60

Essex	 229,000 	58590	42	55	63

Average ACFM	 228,967 	58581

	Camden	   97,409 	24922	18	23	27

Camden	   99,064 	25346	18	24	27

Camden	 101,495 	25967	19	24	28

Average ACFM	   99,323 	25412

	Union	 128,029 	32756	23	30	35

Union	 131,191 	33565	24	31	36

Union	 130,767 	33457	24	31	36

Average ACFM	 129,996 	33259

	0	0	0	0

Warren	   50,005 	12794	9	12	14

Warren	   55,702 	14251	10	13	15

Average ACFM	   52,854 	13523

	0	0

Gloucester	   62,820 	16072	12	15	17

Gloucester	   72,130 	18454	13	17	20

Average ACFM	   67,475 	17263

Total pounds per hour =	296	385	444

	Total tons per year =

	1296	1685	1944

Assumption: 15% oxygen in the stack and 300 degrees F stack temperature

	Actual 2002 NOx in tons per year = 	1,803	Expected reductions = 	507
118

Permitted NOx = 	3,541

The calculations of the estimated emission reductions, using the 130 ppm
NOx limit as an example:

Estimate emissions from each municipal solid waste plant in pounds per
hour.

Convert pounds per hour to tons per year:

(lbs/hr)(8760 hours/year)/2000 lbs/ton = tons/year

(385 lbs/hr)(8760 hours/year)/2000 lbs/ton = 1685 tons/year

Calculate estimated emission reductions:

	Expected reductions in emissions from MSW plants in tons/year =

 	(Actual 2002 NOx emissions from MSW plants in tons/year) – (Emission
emissions from the MSW plants in tons/year)

 = (1803 tons/year) – (1685 tons/year)

= 118 tons/year

The NJDEP estimated these benefits based upon permitted airflow rates at
each facility.  These emissions are higher than the actual emissions
reported by the facility because, in general, the facilities operate at
air flow rates below the permitted level.  Also, the NJDEP anticipates
that the facilities will decrease their emissions due to optimizing
their existing NOx control systems (i.e., either injecting more ammonia
or adding more nozzles).  The NJDEP also expects that Camden County
Resource Recovery facility will need to install a new NOx control to
comply with the proposed rules.  Therefore, the NJDEP expects that the
estimated benefits will be even greater than those calculated.

6.	State - Petroleum Storage Tanks

New Jersey is working on proposing control measures for storage tanks
which concentrates on the following storage operations; external
floating roof tanks with slotted guide poles, degassing and interior
tank cleaning operations, floating roof landing losses, and gasoline
external floating roof tanks without domes.  These storage operations do
not have any VOC emission controls.  The controls that will achieve
reductions by 2009 include the external floating roof tanks with slotted
guide poles and degassing and interior tank cleaning operations.
Anticipated emission reductions from controls for floating roof landing
losses and gasoline external floating roof tanks without domes are not
included in this SIP revision as they will occur post-2009 as the tanks
are taken out of service.  The control measures and benefits under
consideration for 2009 are summarized in Table 4.  For 2009, the total
reductions are 2.25 tons per day (tpd) during the ozone season, and 464
tons per year (tpy), and they will come from the cleaning/degassing
provisions of the rule (1.74 tpd) and the deck fitting retrofits for
external floating roof tanks (0.51 tpd).

Table 4: Estimated 2009 VOC Benefits from Petroleum Storage Tank Control
Measures

Control Measure	Estimated 2009 Benefit

(tons per day)

External floating roof tanks with slotted guidepole sleeves & covers
0.51

Tank degassing & cleaning	1.74

TOTAL	2.25

Slotted guidepole sleeves and covers would be required for tanks storing
VOC and/or refinery products with a vapor pressure of less than 11.0
psia on external floating roof tanks which amounts to about 118 tanks
for New Jersey.  The base inventory for 2002 is 0.52 tpd (189 tpy).
Calculating growth and control from this measure would reduce this
category to 0.01 tpd (2 tpy) for 2009 with a 99% reduction in VOC from
controlling 50% of the 236 external floating roof tanks in New Jersey.
The emission reductions of approximately 0.51 tpd were allocated to each
nonattainment area based on the ratio of storage tanks located in New
Jersey in the Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut area (80%) and in
the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area (20%).

The control measure that New Jersey is considering for tank degassing
and interior tank cleaning will have an approximate efficiency of 95%.
New Jersey has approximately 1000 floating roof tanks that store VOC
and/or refinery products with a vapor pressure less than 11.0 psia.
This control measure is based on the number of tanks cleaned during the
ozone season once every 10 years (or 100 tanks per year).  The base
inventory for 2002 is 292 tpy (calculated over 159 days, because the
requirements only apply during ozone season).  Calculating growth and
control from this measure would reduce this category to 0.094 tpd (15
tpy) with a 95% reduction in VOC for 2009 (calculated for 159 days,
because requirements only apply during ozone season).  Estimated
emission reductions of 1.74 tpd were allocated to each nonattainment
area based on the ratio of storage tanks located in New Jersey in the
Northern New Jersey/New York/Connecticut area (80%) and in the Southern
New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area (20%).

NOx Rule (2005)

The 2005 NOx rule was included in the modeling, but additional emission
reductions were estimated in addition to those estimated for the
modeling.  Estimated emission reductions from the New Jersey 2005
amendments to Subchapter 19 “Additional NOx controls” were
calculated in 2001 by E.H. Pechan.  However, as discussed in the New
Jersey rule proposal dated September 20, 2004, additional reductions
were estimated from annual tune-ups for boilers.  The benefits of the
NOx RACT rule (2005) included in the regional modeling were 7 tpsd
(point and area sources) (see Appendix E); the benefits included in the
New Jersey 2005 rule proposal were 13.3 tpsd.  The additional emission
reductions, for point sources, are approximately 4.7 tpsd; these
additional emission reductions were allocated to each nonattainment area
based on location such that 3.1 tpsd of benefits are in the Northern New
Jersey/New York/Connecticut area (66%) and 1.6 tpsd are in the Southern
New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area (34%).

8.	Portable Fuel Container Rules

New Jersey’s existing Portable Fuel Container rule, which was one of
the six OTC 1-hour ozone shortfall measures discussed in Chapter 4, and
the anticipated amendments to that rule discussed as a BOTW measure in
Chapter 4, were included in the 2009 BOTW modeling.  However, additional
emission reductions are anticipated beyond those estimated for the
modeling.

Emissions from Portable Fuel Containers come from both area and non-road
sources.  However, for New Jersey, only the estimated area source
emission reductions for the 2005 Portable Fuel Container rule and the
anticipated BOTW PFC rule amendments were included in the 2009 BOTW
modeling.  For further details regarding the 2005 Portable Fuel
Container rule calculations and additional details regarding the
anticipated BOTW Portable Fuel Container amendment calculations see
Appendix E.  The NJDEP has calculated the following additional
reductions for the non-road sector:

approximately 2.1 tpsd of VOC in 2009 for the 2005 PFC rule, and;

approximately 0.3 tpd per summer day of VOC in 2009 for the anticipated
BOTW PFC amendments.

The emissions were allocated to each nonattainment area based on the New
Jersey nonattainment area ratios calculated for the 2005 PFC rule; this
equates to approximately 1.7 tons per summer day VOC in the Northern New
Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 0.7 tons per summer
day in the Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area.

9.	ICI Boiler Rule

The BOTW ICI boiler rule, discussed in detail in Chapter 4, was included
in the 2009 BOTW modeling.  However, additional emission reductions are
anticipated beyond the 0.1 tpd that was estimated for the modeling.
Estimated emission reductions from the anticipated ICI boiler rule were
calculated as discussed in Appendix E.  Based on these calculations, New
Jersey estimates an additional 2 tpd NOx reductions beyond those
included in the 2009 BOTW modeling – 1.4 tpd in the Northern New
Jersey/New York/Connecticut nonattainment area and 0.6 tpd in the
Southern New Jersey/Philadelphia nonattainment area.  The emission
benefits were allocated to each nonattainment area based on the percent
of point source emissions in each nonattainment area.

 Ahmed, S.  SCS004C – Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) in a
Petroleum Refinery.  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Stationary Combustion Sources Workgroup, April 11, 2007.

 Ahmed, S.  SCS004D – Equipment Leaks at Petroleum Refinery.  New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Stationary Combustion
Sources Workgroup, February 22, 2007.

 Ahmed, S.  SCS004B – Flares in a Petroleum Refinery.  New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Stationary Combustion Sources
Workgroup, February 22, 2007.

 Ahmed, S.  SCS004A – Process Heaters & Boilers in a Petroleum
Refinery.  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Stationary
Combustion Sources Workgroup, February 22, 2007.

 Percent emission reductions vary by pollutant and depend upon percent
of flare gas recovered using a Flare Gas Recovery (FGR) system.

 Percent emission reductions vary by pollutant and depend upon percent
of flare gas recovered using a Flare Gas Recovery (FGR) system.

 Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport
Commission Concerning the Incorporation of High Electrical Demand Day
Emission Reduction Strategies into Ozone Attainment State Implementation
Planning, March 2, 2007.

 http://www.otcair.org/

 NESCAUM.  Final Report: Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions in the Northeast,
May 1997.

 NESCAUM.  Final Report: Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions in the Northeast,
May 1997.

 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/downloads/tsd/HDT_Emissions_New.pdf

 E.H. Pechan.  Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone
Transport Commission Model Rules.  Prepared for the Ozone Transport
Commission by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Springfield, VA,
01.02.001/9408.000, March 31, 2001.

 New Jersey Register 36 N.J.R. 4228(a); September 20, 2004.

  MACTEC.  OTC Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control
Measures, Final Technical Support Document.  Prepared for the Ozone
Transport Commission by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., Herdon, VA,
February 28, 2007.

 MACTEC.  Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018
for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region, Final
Technical Support Document.  Prepared for Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association (MARAMA) by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.,
February 28, 2007.

 PAGE

  PAGE  1


[Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 501-502]
[DOCID:fr05ja10-156]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61258; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
a Technical Change to the Exchange's Complex Order Program

December 30, 2009.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 29, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Phlx
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to terminate a feature of its complex order
program.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/
Filings/, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to discontinue a feature
of the Exchange's complex orders system, sometimes called ``NBBO
protection.'' This feature enables a complex order to be designated as
ineligible for execution at a price that is inferior to the NBBO for
the individual components of the order. Otherwise, the existing rules
permit COLA-eligible orders (defined in the rule) to be executed
without consideration of any prices that might be available on other
exchanges trading the same options contracts.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g., Rule 1080.08(e)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This feature is mentioned several times in the rules, referring to
various points in the Exchange's complex order processing where an
order is executable but for this designation. In the original proposal
adopting complex orders, the Exchange stated that the purpose of this
provision is to provide a method to protect each component of a Complex
Order from trading through the National Best Bid and/or Offer
(``NBBO'') in that option series, until such time that the order is
placed on the complex order book.\6\ The Exchange believes that the
feature has never been used. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
the proposal is a simple change to eliminate a feature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58099 (July 3, 2008), 73
FR 39769 (July 10, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-50) (Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Orders). The description of
how this feature operates during the Complex Order Live Auction
(``COLA'') appears at 73 FR 39772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed 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, by removing a feature that the Exchange believes has not been
taken advantage of by users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as a ``non-
controversial'' rule pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\10\ because the proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it
was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
provided that the Exchange has given the Commission written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change.\11\
Consequently, the rule is being filed for immediate effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange has
provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
filing date of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-Phlx-2009-107 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-Phlx-2009-107. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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-
Phlx-2009-107 and should be submitted on or before January 26, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31344 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43966-43968]
[DOCID:fr29jy08-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58209; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Allow The NASDAQ Options Market To Participate in the Quarterly Options
Series Pilot Program

July 22, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 18, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. NASDAQ has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial
rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ proposes to allow the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') to
participate in the Quarterly Options Series pilot program on the terms
and conditions that currently apply to other national securities
exchanges that trade standardized options. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on NASDAQ's Web site (http://
nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com), at NASDAQ's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to establish, until July 10, 2009, a
pilot program to list options series that would expire at the close of
business on the last business day of a calendar quarter (``Quarterly
Options Pilot Program''). Under the proposal, the Exchange could select
up to five approved options classes on which Quarterly Options series
could be opened. A series could be opened on any business day and would
expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar
quarter. The Exchange also could list and trade Quarterly Options
series on any options class that is selected by another exchange that
employs a similar pilot program. For each class selected for the Pilot
Program, the Exchange could list series that expire at the end of the
next four consecutive calendar quarters, as well as the fourth quarter
of the following calendar year. NASDAQ's Pilot Program will cover
exchange traded fund (``ETF'') options only.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See electronic mail sent July 21, 2008 from Jeffrey Davis,
Exchange, to Heidi Pilpel, Attorney, Division of Trading and
Markets, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quarterly Options series listed on currently approved options
classes would be P.M. settled and, in all other respects, would settle
in the same manner as do the monthly expiration series in the same
options class. The strike price for each series would be fixed at a
price per share, with two strike prices above and two strike prices
below the value of the underlying security at about the time that a
Quarterly Options series is opened for trading on the Exchange. The
interval between strike prices on Quarterly Options series would be the
same as the interval between strike prices for series in the same
options class that expire in accordance with the normal monthly
expiration cycles. Series listed by the Exchange under the Pilot
Program at the time of initial listing would have strike prices that
are within $5.00 from the closing price of the underlying security on
the preceding trading day.
    The proposal would permit the Exchange to open for trading
additional Quarterly Options series of the same class when the Exchange
deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer
demand, or when the market price of the underlying security moves
substantially from the initial exercise price or prices.
    On August 7, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'')
filed a proposal to revise the terms of their Quarterly Options Series
Pilot Program. As part of this filing, the CBOE proposed to implement
new policies related to the listing and delisting of additional strike
prices for Quarterly Options Series. The proposal was approved, as
amended, by the Commission on March 3, 2008.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57410 (March 3,
2008), 73 FR 12483 (March 7, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-96).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq proposes to adopt the revised terms of the CBOE's Pilot
Program, for use in its own Pilot Program. Specifically, Nasdaq
proposes to amend Chapter IV, Section 6 and Commentary.04 to permit the
Exchange to list additional strike prices for Quarterly Option Series
in ETF options that fall within a percentage range (30%) above and
below the price of the underlying ETF.
    Additionally, upon demonstrated customer interest, the Exchange
also will be permitted to open additional strike prices of Quarterly
Option Series in ETF options that are more than 30% above or below the
current price of the

underlying ETF. Market Makers trading for their own account will not be
considered when determining customer interest under this provision. In
addition to the initial listed series, the proposal will permit the
Exchange to list up to sixty (60) additional series per expiration
month for each Quarterly Option Series in ETF options. The proposed
policies regarding the listing of new strikes are identical to those in
place as part of the CBOE's Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Chapter IV, Section 6,
Commentary .04 in order to adopt the same policy presently in place at
the CBOE, regarding the delisting of inactive strikes in Quarterly
Options Series. Under the proposed delisting policy, the Exchange will,
on a monthly basis, review Quarterly Option Series that are outside a
range of five (5) strikes above and five (5) strikes below the current
price of the underlying ETF, and delist series with no open interest in
both the put and the call series having a strike price: (i) higher than
the highest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call
series for a given expiration month; or (ii) lower than the lowest
strike price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a
given expiration month. Notwithstanding the proposed delisting policy,
the Exchange will grant customer requests to add strikes and/or
maintain strikes in Quarterly Options Series eligible for delisting.
    The delisting policy proposed by the Exchange is designed to
mitigate the number of options series with no open interest, which
would reduce quote traffic accordingly. If during the life of the Pilot
Program the Exchange identifies series for delisting, the Exchange will
notify other options exchanges with similar delisting polices, and
shall work with such other exchanges to develop a uniform list of
securities to be delisted, also as to help to ensure uniform series
delisting of multiply listed Quarterly Options Series in ETF options.
    Lastly, the Exchange notes that the delisting policy, once
approved, would become part of the Pilot Program and, going forward,
would be considered by the Commission when the Exchange seeks to renew
or make permanent the Pilot Program in the future. The proposed
policies regarding the delisting of inactive strikes are identical to
those in place as part of the CBOE's Quarterly Options Series Pilot
Program.
    In support of this proposed rule change, and as currently in place
for the Pilot Program as approved for other exchanges, the Exchange
will submit to the Commission a report (the ``Quarterly Options Series
Pilot Program Report'') detailing the Exchange's experience with the
Quarterly Options Pilot Program. Specifically, the Quarterly Options
Series Pilot Program Report submitted by current exchange participants
contains data and written analysis regarding the five options classes
included in the Quarterly Options Pilot Program.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Specifically, the Exchange acknowledges that its Quarterly
Options Pilot Program Report shall include: (1) Data and written
analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for
which Quarterly Options Series were opened; (2) an assessment of the
appropriateness of the option classes selected for the Pilot; (3) an
assessment of the impact of the Pilot on the capacity of Nasdaq,
OPRA, and on market data vendors (to the extent data from market
data vendors is available); (4) any capacity problems or other
problems that arose during the operation of the Pilot and how Nasdaq
addressed such problems; (5) any complaints that Nasdaq received
during the operation of the Pilot and how Nasdaq addressed them; (6)
any additional information that would assist in assessing the
operation of the Pilot; (7) the impact of additional series on the
Exchange's market and quote capacity; and (8) the implementation and
effects of the delisting policy, including the number of series
eligible for delisting during the period covered by the report, the
number of series actually delisted during that period (pursuant to
the delisting policy or otherwise), and documentation of any
customer requests to maintain Quarterly Options Series strikes that
were otherwise eligible for delisting. See electronic mail sent July
21, 2008 from Jeffrey Davis, Exchange, to Heidi Pilpel, Attorney,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and
demand to adopt the Quarterly Options Pilot Program for the coming
year. The Exchange further believes that the Quarterly Options Series
Pilot Program has provided investors with a flexible and valuable tool
to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and the ability to
more closely tailor their investment strategies and decisions to the
movement of the underlying security. The Exchange notes that no
participating exchange has detected any material proliferation of
illiquid options series resulting from the introduction of the
Quarterly Options Pilot Program. Finally, the Exchange represents that
it has the necessary systems capacity to support new options series
that result from the continued listing and trading of Quarterly Options
series.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed 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 are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers,
or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by this title
matters not related to the purposes of this title or the administration
of the exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are consistent with the statute in that they
are designed to facilitate transactions in options on the Nasdaq
Options Market by encouraging participants to provide liquidity in
Quarterly Options Series. If the proposal succeeds in attracting
liquidity, Nasdaq expects that quoted spreads in Quarterly Options
Series will decrease and execution speeds and efficiency will increase.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary,
the proposal is designed to enhance competition and is based upon the
rules of another national securities exchange that trades standardized
options.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.

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

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay
to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the
30th day after filing. The Commission has determined that waiving the
30-day operative delay of the Exchange's proposal is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest and will promote
competition because such waiver will allow Nasdaq to begin immediately
to list and trade Quarterly Options Series in competition with the
other exchanges that trade Quarterly Options Series under similar pilot
programs.\12\ The Commission notes that Nasdaq has represented that it
expects its entry into the Quarterly Options Pilot Program to benefit
investors by narrowing spreads and increasing execution speed and
efficiency. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative
upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-064 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-064.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-064 and should be
submitted on or before August 19, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. E8-17309 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P