RESPONSES TO PEER REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT RISK ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT FOR COKE OVEN BATTERIES Risk and Exposure Assessment Group Emissions Standards Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina May 20, 2004 1 I. INTRODUCTION The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) submitted the April 2003 draft report, Risk Assessment Document for Coke Oven MACT Residual Risk, to a panel of three independent experts for peer review. The peer reviewer comments responded to six charge questions we provided. Their comments are detailed in the document, Peer Review Report on the Draft Risk Assessment for Coke Oven MACT Residual Risk Assessment, dated June 13, 2003. Our responses to the peer review comments are incorporated into the risk assessment document for the proposed amendments, which can be found in the rulemaking docket ( Docket Number OAR 2003 0051). This report documents our responses to each of the major ( i. e., comments that addressed technical rather that editorial issues) comments, including those additional comments made in response to questions that arose during their review.

II. SUMMARY OF EPA RESPONSES TO PEER REVIEW COMMENTS Charge Question 1: Given the specific emission characteristics of this source and the tools available for characterizing these emissions, is the methodology we applied, ( i. e., using the Buoyant Line Plume [ BLP] model to estimate plume height and the Industrial Source Complex [ ISCST3] model to disperse the emissions), a reasonable approach for modeling the atmospheric transport of the affected emissions? Additionally, is our use of virtual stacks a reasonable approach for handling the emissions coming from this type of source?

Peer Review Comments: The reviewers were generally supportive of the use of the modeling approach we used, ( i. e., the joining of the BLP and ISC models and the use of 14 " virtual stacks") to disperse the emissions across these batteries. They requested clarification on these and a few other topics. Their major comments focused on the modeling assumptions or options chosen. Specifically, their comments were that more documentation and justification for the modeling assumptions were needed, especially in the area of final plume rise, buoyancy induced dispersion, and building downwash. One reviewer also pointed out a possible error in the buoyancy flux term, which could underestimate the maximum ground level concentration.

Response: To address their comments requesting additional clarification, we revised the risk assessment document to add more information to the text and to the tables. In regards to the modeling assumptions, we added more text to Appendix D as well as Table D 3 to identify the modeling assumptions and support how they were used. We also added some additional text to clarify the bias table ( Table 2 10). Table D 3 provides a description of possible modeling options and how each was handled in setting up the models. For the parameters upon which the reviewers focused, we used the building downwash algorithm contained within the BLP model but did not include the option for plume depletion, buoyancy induced dispersion, or stack tip downwash. We performed a sensitivity evaluation of these features and concluded that their inclusion as options in the modeling would have minimal effect on the predicted ambient concentration and deposition at critical offsite locations. More specifically, these evaluations 2 show:

( 1) When gradual plume rise not considered, ( i. e., the final plume height is assumed to be reached directly above the battery), the effect is minimal because under most meteorological conditions, final plume rise is reached before the plume reaches the facility fenceline.

( 2) Under typical conditions, buoyancy induced dispersion will result in an average increase of plume size by about 5%.

( 3) The difference in ambient concentrations estimates resulting from different plume downwash calculations ( i. e., between the BLP algorithm and the newer ISC algorithms) is minimal at offsite locations.

( 4) Increasing the number of virtual or representative stacks from 14 to 36 results in ambient concentration predictions that vary by less than 10%.

We checked the buoyancy flux term in the draft risk assessment document and found that the term F should be F' ( F prime), but the calculations were correct. The text has been corrected and our procedures match those of Sciences International, who developed the protocol .

Charge Question 2: A multi pathway screening analysis was done in order to determine if pathways other than inhalation were a source of significant ( by comparison with inhalation) risk to the surrounding population. This screening analysis was conducted in two steps. First, hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) identified as being constituents of coke oven emissions were crossed with lists of chemicals identified as being a PBT ( persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic) concern to EPA. Second, the resulting list of constituent HAP was modeled using EPA's Indirect Exposure Model ( IEM). Is this two step approach an appropriate method for screening HAPs for multi pathway? Is the level of the analysis sufficient for making the determination that ingestion risk is not enough of a contributor to population risk to warrant more refined or extensive analysis?

Peer Review Comments: There was concern that some of the precipitation data on SAMSON CD may not have been complete. One reviewer questioned the need for a two step selection process for determining which HAP would be included in a multipathway screening assessment, but agreed that what we did was done correctly and was comfortable with the level of the assessment. However, the document should include explanation for 7 ( out of a possible maximum ranking of 9) as the cut off criterion for PBT chemicals. This reviewer also suggested it would have been just as easy to run all HAP rather than use a process of selection to narrow the focus. There was also a comment that while the IEM model provided an appropriate basis for the final decision that inhalation was the dominant pathway, there was a need for more documentation of the IEM model inputs and options. 1 Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library: Technical Resources Manual, Vol. I., EPA: OAQPS, EPA 453 K 04 001A and Facility Specific Assessment, Vol. II, EPA 453 K 04 001B, April 2004. These documents are available at http: www. epa. gov/ ttn/ fera/ risk_ atoxic. html.

3 Response: We checked the SAMSON data and found that the precipitation data for the meteorological sites we used in this assessment were complete. In response to the need for more clarification, we added specific text to the document to better explain the selection process and identified the references which contain the " options and switches" needed to run the IEM. Had the multipathway analysis progressed beyond a screening level assessment and had the noninhalation cancer risk and hazard added more to the total risk and hazard, we would have added more detailed multipathway modeling information.

One reviewer did not think we needed to use a two step selection process for determining which HAP to include in the screening multipathway assessment. The approach we used was to select HAP from the universe of HAP known to be emitted from coke oven facilities that were found on EPA listings of PBT HAP. This method is consistent with our current approach suggested in our Technical Resource Manual. 1 That is, we focused on the subset of HAP that persist and may bioaccumulate, then remove them from further analysis if they are shown to contribute a small fraction to the total risk estimate. In that document, we suggest a list of HAP that should be assessed via a multipathway assessment. Once the HAP are selected, the screening level analyses may assume relatively high exposure factors to determine whether risk associated with a specific pathway appears to be significant enough to warrant more robust analysis. Subsequent tiers of analysis, using more realistic exposure factors and perhaps sampling and analysis, are generally undertaken only if lower tier analyses continue to indicate the potential for risk. The analysis we conducted for coke ovens assumed central tendency as well high end exposure factors. When the risks resulting from the use of high end factors were estimated, we determined that the non inhalation risk was less by an order of magnitude than risks due to inhalation exposures. Therefore, we did not perform any additional tiers or refinements of the assessments. A detailed discussion of this process is given in the risk assessment document.

As requested, we enhanced the text with more explanation of the choice of 7 as the cut off criterion. In our methodology, we compared the coke oven emissions constituent HAP list with the EPA list ( see the risk report for more complete information) that represents the relative ranking of chemicals based on their persistence, bioaccumulation factor, and toxicity ( PBT). This PBT list ranks each chemical for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity using scores ranging from 1 to 3 for each characteristic; consequently, the maximum ranking for any chemical for PBT is 9. Although persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity are predictors of potential chronic risk, these chemical properties and their scores do not indicate absolute risk, but are a starting point in assessing their risk. To screen coke oven constituents for their PBT concern, we selected a cut off score of 7. This approach ensured that HAP of interest represented at least a moderately high concern for PBT.

Charge Question 3: This analysis models coke oven emissions to generate air 4 concentrations and deposition rates within a 50 kilometer ( km) radius around each facility. Risk distributions are calculated using the 2000 census data and variations in exposure frequency. Overall analysis uncertainty is qualitatively described in the bias table in the report, but more quantitative uncertainty was estimated only for the emissions from the sources subject to the 1993 NESHAP, which are considered the critical element in this assessment. Only variability around exposure duration is presented. Does the evaluation and discussion of uncertainty adequately characterize the uncertainty and variability inherent in this assessment at a level that is appropriate for the level of the decision being made, ( i. e., to determine the need for and level of a risk based rule, recognizing that the second decision involves cost and feasibility as well as a risk component)?

Peer Review Comments: One reviewer suggested that ISCST3 may underestimate the long term average for elevated sources in flat terrain ( based on recent model comparisons) rather than overestimate under the conditions we stated. He also wanted to see the actual values ( rather than just our reference to the GIRAS data) used to represent roughness in the model. The other reviewers commented on the limited scope of our uncertainty analysis ( e. g., focusing on the emissions from the MACT 1 sources only). One reviewer pointed to the uncertainty analysis performed for the utility risk assessment as a possible approach. They also commented that the current analysis does not provide sufficient basis for the decision, but qualified that statement ( in their response to Charge Question 4) by saying they didn't think a more rigorous uncertainty analysis would have affected the decision made.

Response: In our response to the modeling question, we did not make any adjustments to the document. The ISC is EPA's current regulatory model, and as a general rule, will overestimate risks rather then underestimate risk, particularly when the inputs and model options are chosen to be more health protective as they were in the coke oven risk assessment.

In response to the comment on the GIRAS data, we added extensive footnotes to Table D 5 which describe the input values and assumptions for roughness used in the ISCST3 modeling. The input value we used wasn't as high as the reviewer thought it was, but, in addition, we also determined that the impact of roughness on the assessment would not be significant.

In response to the comment on uncertainty, we added additional text to the document, but did not consider re doing the analysis based on the reviewer's suggestion. In the utility risk assessment which the reviewer mentioned, dispersion and exposure parameters were evaluated as a ratio, ( i. e., the deterministic value used was divided by various values from each parameter distribution). When this was done for the previous risk assessment, the conclusion was that the baseline deterministic risk assessment results were conservative estimates of risk which are more likely to overestimate than underestimate risk. The deterministic estimates of risk ranged from the 71st percentile to the 98th percentile when compared with the probabilistic results. The 95th percentile of the overall distribution was found to be roughly twice the original deterministic risk estimate suggesting that the deterministic estimate fell within the range of a typical high end 5 estimate. The uncertainty analysis we did for the coke oven risk assessment was not as encompassing as what was done in the previous risk assessment, ( i. e., we only addressed uncertainty around the emissions estimates), but the results of this analysis suggested that our estimates of emissions may be as low as 2 times or as high as 3 times the emission estimates we used in the coke oven risk assessment. These values suggest our uncertainty around these estimates is small. When considering the results of the analysis we did for the coke oven risk assessment and the results of previous analyses done on exposure parameters, our conclusion was that while a more detailed uncertainty analysis may be more desirable, it is not expected to have an impact on the risk levels such that a change in any regulatory decision would be anticipated. The reviewer who suggested the more rigorous analysis also came up with the same conclusion.

Charge Question 4: Is the scope of this assessment appropriate and does it provide sufficient information to support the regulatory decision?

Peer Review Comments: The reviewers generally felt the scope of the assessment was adequate but that some clarifications in the text and tables would help. One reviewer suggested strengthening our case for not including mercury in our multipathway screening assessment.

Response: We added more text and information to various tables to clarify the assessment ( e. g., footnotes to Appendix I tables describing the data used for calculating cumulative probabilities). In the revised risk assessment document, we conclude that mercury should not be assessed in the multipathway assessment because the test data for similar coke facilities showed mercury emissions to be below detectable levels ( see data in Appendix C ). This result was supported by the European study cited in the risk assessment document on metals emitted from coke ovens which concluded that mercury in the coal was transferred to the byproduct plant and removed with the recovered by products. Based on these data, we decided not to assess mercury as a constituent of coke oven emissions. In responding to the request for more IEM model information, we would have expanded the document with additional multipathway modeling information, had the multipathway analysis progressed beyond a screening level assessment and had the non inhalation cancer risk and hazard added more to the total risk and hazard .

Charge Question 5: Does the report present results and highlight the major assumptions and uncertainties in a clear, concise, and transparent manner?

Peer Review Comments: The reviewers had a mixed response to this question. One said the report " presents results and highlights the major assumptions and uncertainties in a clear, concise, and transparent manner", but suggested improvement in documentation. However, another reviewer said he didn't think the assumptions were well described. This latter comment was directed more towards the reports organization and documentation rather than the completeness of the information.

Response: We revised the document to respond to these comments. Some 2 Mercury Study Report to Congress. EPA: OAQPS. EPA 452/ R 97 004, December 1997. This document is available at http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ mercury. html.

6 organizational changes were made to give the reader a better sense of the sequence of assessment activities, ( e. g., a flowchart was added). We also added more descriptive text and footnotes to text and tables to help explain what was done and what information sources we used ( e. g., the explanation of the BLP/ ISC modeling was enhanced in Appendices D and E with more text and tables of assumptions and modeling options). We did not significantly expand the discussion of the multipathway assessment in the document. The IEM model is very data intensive and although we have included many tables of input parameters, we didn't add more details on the IEM model " options." We rely on the many references to other analyses which used the IEM model as the source of these data. For example, in the initial screen we used a default value for waterbody size, flow rate, watershed size, and other parameters based on the health protective scenario analyzed in the Mercury Report to Congress. 2 Had the multipathway analysis progressed beyond a screening level assessment and had the non inhalation cancer risk and hazard added more to the total risk and hazard, we would have expanded the current document with additional specific multipathway modeling information.

Charge Question 6: Has any information been neglected which would likely impact or alter the regulatory decision?

Peer Reviewer Comments: The reviewers did not identify any information that was neglected and which would have a likely impact on the regulatory decision. However, they reemphasized earlier comments on modeling assumptions and the need for better documentation.

Response: Responses to their concerns about documentation and clarity were addressed under other charge questions. Several revisions were made to improve clarity, explain modeling assumptions, and to provide better documentation.

Additional Comments and Responses: Two of the reviewers made additional comments that were not identified with a specific charge question. Many of these were editorial in nature or requested additional clarification. These were addressed directly in the risk assessment document. For example, a flow chart was included describing the sequence of activities undertaken in this assessment. Also, we added an outline at the beginning of section 2 and rewrote the text to match that outline. We also made revisions to the risk assessment document to respond to their suggestions for clarifying the relationship between the BSO components and the overall risk coefficient for inhalation, how the noncancer hazard was determined, how risks were aggregated, the criterion of an HI value of 0.2 for screening, how risks were generated, exposure duration assumptions, apportioned emissions contributions for MACT I and II sources, exclusion of populations in Canada, and why 50 kilometers is used as the modeling distance.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 23347]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Docket No. NJ14-21-000]

Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 3, 2014, Oncor Electric Delivery Company
LLC submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Oncor Tex-La Tariff Rate
Changes, effective September 12, 2013.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 6, 2014.

    Dated: April 22, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09597 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 57900]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-4482-004; Docket No. ID-7981-000]

Huskilson, Christopher G.; Blunden, Gregory W.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 18, 2016, Christopher G. Huskilson and
Gregory W. Blunden submitted for filing, an application for authority
to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) and section 45.8 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 8, 2016.

    Dated: August 18, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20278 Filed 8-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15611-15613]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05020]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R01-OAR-2022-0515; FRL-10220-02-R1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Maine; 111(d)/129 Revised State Plan for
Large Municipal Waste Combustors and State Plan for Small Municipal
Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Clean Air Act (CAA) State Plan for Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC)
units submitted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(Maine DEP). This submission includes revisions to Maine's previously
approved State Plan for existing Large MWCs in response to amended
emission guidelines (EGs) for Large MWCs. This submission also includes
a State Plan for existing Small MWCs. Maine DEP's State Plans for Large
and Small MWCs implement and enforce provisions at least as protective
as the EGs applicable to these subcategories of solid waste
incinerators. This action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 13, 2023. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of April 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2022-0515. 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 at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that, if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shutsu Wong, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (Mail Code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On September 26, 2022 (87 FR 58294), EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maine.
    The NPRM proposed approval of the Clean Air Act State Plan
revisions for existing Large MWCs and new State Plan for existing Small
MWCs submitted by the Maine DEP on December 24, 2019. Maine DEP revised
the provisions of 06-096 Code of Maine Regulations (CMR) Chapter 121,
entitled ``Emission Limitations and Emission Testing of Resource
Recovery Facilities,'' and submitted the State Plan in response to
amended EGs for Large MWCs and federal standards for existing Small
MWCs.\1\ Maine DEP's State Plan is for implementing and enforcing
provisions at least as protective as the EGs applicable to existing
Large and Small MWCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 71 FR 27324 Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large
Municipal Waste Combustors and 68 FR 5158 Federal Plan Requirements
for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed On or Before
August 30, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other specific requirements under sections 111(d) and 129 of the
Clean Air Act, and the rationale for EPA's proposed action, are
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. Only one comment
was received on the NPRM which was in support of the proposed action.
This comment is available within the docket for this action.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maine DEP's revised State Plan for existing Large
MWCs and State Plan for existing Small MWCs.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the 06-
096 CMR, Chapter 121, entitled ``Emission Limitations and Emission
Testing of Resource Recovery Facilities,'' effective on September 14,
2019, excluding the provisions for new Large MWCs covered in 06-096 CMR
Chapter 121, Section 6., entitled ``Large Municipal Waste Combustor
Units Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb.'' This regulation being
incorporated by reference revises Maine's previously approved State
Plan for existing Large MWCs in response to amended EGs for Large MWCs,
and includes a State Plan for existing Small MWCs. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents generally available at the
EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). They are also available at: https://www.regulations.gov.
This incorporation by reference has been approved by the Office of the
Federal Register and the plan is federally enforceable under the CAA as
of the effective date of this final rulemaking.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See Clean Air Act sections 111(d) and
129(b); 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart
A; and 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. 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);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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, the State Plan 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 15, 2023. 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 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: March 6, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Part 62 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLAN FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

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

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

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. Amend Section 62.4845 by revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding
paragraphs (b)(7) and (8) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  62.4845

* * * * *
    (b)
* * * * *
    (4) Control of metals, acid gases, organic compounds and nitrogen
oxide emissions from existing large municipal waste combustors with the
capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid
waste, submitted on April 15, 1998.
* * * * *
    (7) A revision to the plan controlling metals, acid gases, organic
compounds and nitrogen oxide emissions from large municipal waste
combustors with the capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day
of municipal solid waste, submitted on December 24, 2019 (incorporated
by reference, see paragraph (d)(1) of this section).
    (8) Control of metals, acid gases, organic compounds and nitrogen
oxide emissions from existing small municipal waste combustors with the
capacity to combust less than or equal to 250 tons per day of municipal
solid waste, submitted on December 24, 2019 (incorporated by reference,
see paragraph (d)(1) of this section).
* * * * *
    (d) Incorporation by reference. The material listed in this
paragraph (d) is incorporated by reference in this section with the
approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at
the EPA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Contact EPA at: EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation
Division, 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100, Boston, MA,<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email
[email protected]. The material may be obtained from: State of
Maine, Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 17 State House
Station, 28 Tyson Drive, Augusta, Maine 04333,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
www.maine.gov/dep/:
    (1) 06-096 Code of Maine Regulations: Department of Environmental
Protection, Chapter 121, ``Emission Limitations and Emission Testing of
Resource Recovery Facilities,'' excluding Section 6 ``Large Municipal
Waste Combustor Units Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb,'' amended
September 14, 2019.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
3. Section 62.4975 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  62.4975  Identification of sources.

    (a) Penobscot Energy Recovery Company, Orrington, Maine
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) ecomaine, Portland, Maine

0
4. Add an undesignated center heading and Sec.  62.5000 to subpart U to
read as follows:

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From
Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the Capacity To Combust Less
Than or Equal to 250 Tons per Day of Municipal Solid Waste

Sec.  62.5000  Identification of sources.

    (a) Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation, Auburn, Maine
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2023-05020 Filed 3-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49824-49826]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20363]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65043; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-104]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Extension of a Pilot Program Regarding Price Improvement XL

August 5, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on August 1, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``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 Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1080(n), Price
Improvement XL (``PIXL\SM\'') to extend, through July 18, 2012, a pilot
program (the ``pilot'') concerning (i) The early conclusion of the PIXL
Auction (as described below), and (ii) permitting orders of fewer than
50 contracts into the PIXL Auction. The current pilot is scheduled to
expire August 31, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
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 Exchange 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. The Exchange 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the pilot
through July 18, 2012.
Background
    The Exchange adopted PIXL in October, 2010 as a price-improvement
mechanism on the Exchange.\3\ PIXL is a

component of the Exchange's fully automated options trading system,
PHLX XL[supreg] \4\ that allows an Exchange member (an ``Initiating
Member'') to electronically submit for execution an order it represents
as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker dealer, or any other
entity (``PIXL Order'') against principal interest or against any other
order it represents as agent (an ``Initiating Order'') provided it
submits the PIXL Order for electronic execution into the PIXL Auction
(``Auction'') pursuant to the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63027 (October 1,
2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-108) (Order
Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Proposed
Price Improvement System, Price Improvement XL).
    \4\ This proposal refers to ``PHLX XL'' as the Exchange's
automated options trading system. In May 2009 the Exchange enhanced
the system and adopted corresponding rules referring to the system
as ``Phlx XL II.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995
(May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). The
Exchange intends to submit a separate technical proposed rule change
that would change all references to the system from ``Phlx XL II''
to ``PHLX XL'' for branding purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An Initiating Member may initiate a PIXL Auction by submitting a
PIXL Order in one of three ways:
     First, the Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying a single price at which it seeks to execute the PIXL Order
(a ``stop price'').
     Second, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying that it is willing to automatically match as principal or as
agent on behalf of an Initiating Order the price and size of all
trading interest and responses to the PIXL Auction Notification
(``PAN,'' as described below) (``auto-match''), in which case the PIXL
Order will be stopped at the National Best Bid/Offer ('' NBBO'') on the
Initiating Order side of the market (if 50 contracts or greater) or, if
less than 50 contracts, the better of: (i) The PHLX Best Bid/Offer
(``PBBO'') price on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order
improved by at least one minimum price improvement increment, or (ii)
the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided
in either case that certain circumstances are met and that such price
is at least one increment better than the limit of an order on the book
on the same side as the PIXL Order.
     Third, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying that it is willing to either: (i) Stop the entire order at a
single stop price and auto-match PAN responses, as described below,
together with trading interest, at a price or prices that improve the
stop price to a specified price above or below which the Initiating
Member will not trade (a ``Not Worse Than'' or ``NWT'' price); (ii)
stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match all PAN
responses and trading interest at or better than the stop price; or
(iii) stop the entire order at the NBBO on the Initiating Order side
(if 50 contracts or greater) or the better of: (A) The PBBO price on
the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order improved by one
minimum price improvement increment, or (B) the PIXL Order's limit
price (if the order is a limit order) on the Initiating Order side (if
for less than 50 contracts), and auto-match PAN responses and trading
interest at a price or prices that improve the stop price up to the NWT
price. In all cases, if the PBBO on the same side of the market as the
PIXL Order represents a limit order on the book, the stop price must be
at least one minimum price improvement increment better than the booked
limit order's limit price.
    After the PIXL Order is entered, a PAN is broadcast and a one-
second blind Auction ensues. Anyone may respond to the PAN by sending
orders or quotes. At the conclusion of the Auction, the PIXL Order will
be allocated at the best price(s).
    Once the Initiating Member has submitted a PIXL Order for
processing, such PIXL Order may not be modified or cancelled. Under any
of the above circumstances, the Initiating Member's stop price or NWT
price may be improved to the benefit of the PIXL Order during the
Auction, but may not be cancelled[.]
    After a PIXL Order has been submitted, a member organization
submitting the order has no ability to control the timing of the
execution. The execution is carried out by the Exchange's PHLX
XL[supreg] automated options trading system and pricing is determined
solely by the other orders and quotes that are present in the Auction.
The Pilot
    Three components of the PILX system were approved by the Commission
on a pilot basis: (1) Paragraphs (n)(i)(A)(2) and (n)(i)(B)(2) of Rule
1080, relating to auction eligibility requirements; (2) paragraphs
(n)(ii)(B)(4) and (n)(ii)(D) of Rule 1080, relating to the early
conclusion of the PIXL Auction; and (3) paragraph (n)(vii) of Rule
1080, stating that there shall be no minimum size requirement of orders
entered into PIXL. The pilots were approved for a pilot period expiring
on August 31, 2011.\5\ The Exchange notes that during the pilot period
it has been required to submit, and has been submitting, certain data
periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for
all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.\6\ The
Exchange will continue to provide such data. The Exchange believes
that, because the pilot has been operating for a relatively short
amount of time, the proposed extension should afford the Commission
additional time to evaluate the pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See supra note 3.
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 1080(n)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot through July 18, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in that it is 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 is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \9\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that PIXL, including the rules
to which the pilot applies, result in increased liquidity available at
improved prices, with competitive final pricing out of the Initiating
Member's complete control. The Exchange believes that PIXL promotes and
fosters competition and affords the opportunity for price improvement
to more options contracts.

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 written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give 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, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-2011-104 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-2011-104. 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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington DC, 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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 Number SR-Phlx-2011-104 and should be
submitted on or before September 1, 2011.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20363 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ICR 2536.01,<PHONE_NUMBER>-001 https://cfpub.epa.gov/sbvps/index.cfm?fuseaction=app.notregistered


[Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 49342-49344]
[DOCID:fr28au07-156]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56300; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-63; SR-NYSEArca-2007-
64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Relating to
Conforming Amendments Involving the Deletion of Rule 10a-1 Under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

August 22, 2007.
    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 June 29, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange''), through its
wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca
Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described in Items I and
II

below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposals as ``non-controversial'' rule changes under Rule
19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which rendered the proposals effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule changes from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

A. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.5(e), Rule 7.16, Rule 7.18, and Rule 7.37

    The Exchange proposes to make certain conforming amendments to NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 4.5(e), Rule 7.16, Rule 7.18, and Rule 7.37 to
address the impending deletion of Rule 10a-1 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. These conforming ``housekeeping'' changes will
replace references to Rule 10a-1 and, where appropriate, add references
to relevant rules in Regulation SHO. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.nyse.com, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

B. NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(f) and Rule 11.8

    The Exchange also proposes to make certain conforming amendments to
NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(f) and Rule 11.8 to address the impending deletion
of Rule 10a-1 under the Act. These conforming ``housekeeping'' changes
will replace references to Rule 10a-1 and, where appropriate, add
references to relevant rules in Regulation SHO. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nyse.com, and at the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule changes and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule changes. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 Changes

1. Purpose
    a. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.5(e), Rule 7.16, Rule 7.18, and Rule
7.37
    On June 28, 2007, the SEC released final rules deleting the price
test of Rule 10a-1 and amending Regulation SHO to prohibit any SRO from
having a price test in place. The Exchange proposes to make certain
conforming amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.5(e), Rule 7.16,
Rule 7.18, and Rule 7.37 to address the deletion of Rule 10a-1. This
rule filing proposes to delete the Exchange's current price test
restrictions and remove requirements relating to marking sell orders
``exempt'' based on exceptions set forth in Rule 10a-1. In addition,
other conforming and ``housekeeping'' changes are also proposed to
replace references to Rule 10a-1 in certain Exchange rules and, where
appropriate, add references to relevant rules in Regulation SHO.
    b. NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(f) and Rule 11.8
    On June 28, 2007, the SEC released final rules deleting the price
test of Rule 10a-1 and amending Regulation SHO to prohibit any SRO from
having a price test in place. The Exchange proposes to make certain
conforming amendments to NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(f) and Rule 11.8 to address
the deletion of Rule 10a-1. This rule filing proposes to delete the
Exchange's current price test restrictions and remove requirements
relating to marking sell orders ``exempt'' based on exceptions set
forth in Rule 10a-1. In addition, other conforming and ``housekeeping''
changes are also proposed to replace references to Rule 10a-1 in
certain Exchange rules and, where appropriate, add references to
relevant rules in Regulation SHO.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with
section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general and further the objectives of
section 6(b)(5) \5\ in particular in that they are designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principals of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 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 changes will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule changes were neither
solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule changes have become effective upon
filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \7\ thereunder because they do not (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition, and (ii) become operative within 30
days after the date of the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Commission believes such waiver is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow
the proposed rule changes to be effective on July 6, 2007, the
compliance date for the amendments to Rule 10a-1 and Regulation SHO.\8\
For this reason, the Commission designates the proposals to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day pre-operative
period, the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed
rule changes on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
changes, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule changes 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
changes are 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-NYSEArca-2007-63 or SR-NYSEArca-2007-64 on the subject
line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-63 or SR-
NYSEArca-2007-64. The 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
changes that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule changes 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 offices 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-NYSEArca-2007-63 or SR-NYSE-2007-64 and should be submitted
on or before September 18, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16957 Filed 8-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 22, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11307-11310]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0122; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-010-AD;
Amendment 39-18809; AD 2017-04-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Textron Aviation Inc. Model 560XL airplanes. This AD requires
inspections of the fuel tube and right alternating current (AC)
generator wires. This AD was prompted by reports of inadequate
separation between the electrical wire bundle and fuel tube. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 9, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 9,
2017.
    We must receive comments on this AD by April 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316-
517-6215; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/csupport/newlogin.jsp. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the

FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0122.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0122; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Henrichsen, Aerospace Engineer,
Electrical Systems and Avionics, ACE-119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D.
Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 316-
946-4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We have been notified by Textron Aviation Inc. of a windshield heat
failure reported by a flight crew. During follow-on troubleshooting
activities, the maintenance crew discovered an open circuit breaker in
the tail cone area after finding the AC generator electrical wires
chafed against a motive flow fuel tube that was leaking. Additional
inspections by the operator found two more airplanes with chafing
damage to the wires and fuel tube. Textron Aviation Inc. also found
evidence of damage to the electrical wire bundle on two other
airplanes. Further inspections have found inadequate separation between
the electrical wire bundle and fuel tube on 19 airplanes in service.
The airplane quality inspection failed to identify the wire separation
problem prior to airplane delivery. Inadequate separation between the
fuel tube and electrical wire bundle, if not corrected, could result in
chafing, a possible fuel leak, and electrical arcing, which could lead
to a fuel ignition source and possible uncontrolled fire in the tail
cone of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Textron Aviation Service Letter SL560XL-24-07,
including Attachment, dated January 13, 2017. The service information
describes procedures for inspections of the fuel tube and right AC
generator wires, applicable adjustments, and corrective actions. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously. This AD also requires sending the
inspection results to Textron Aviation Inc. For information on the
procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0122.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this AD.
Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are
related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature
of any condition found.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this AD. Corrective
actions correct or address any condition found.

Interim Action

    This AD is considered to be interim action. The inspection reports
that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain
better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the damage, and
eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition.
Once final action has been identified, we might consider further
rulemaking.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
inadequate separation between the electrical wire bundle and fuel tube
could result in chafing, electrical arcing, and a possible fuel leak,
leading to a fuel ignition source and possible uncontrolled fire in the
tail cone of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2017-0122 and
Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-010-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 639 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections........................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour               $0             $85         $54,315
                                      = $85.
Reporting..........................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour                0              85          54,315
                                      = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs or
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these repairs or replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel tube repair or replacement............  7 work-hours x $85 per hour = $595.            $321            $916
Electrical wiring replacement..............  8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680.            \1\4          \1\684
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These figures are based on 1 foot of wire at $4 per foot.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-04-14 Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held
by Cessna Aircraft Company): Amendment 39-18809; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0122; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-010-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 9, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate
previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 560XL airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Textron Aviation
Service Letter SL560XL-24-07, dated January 13, 2017.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of inadequate separation between
the electrical wire bundle and fuel tube. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct inadequate separation and consequent chafing,
which could result in electrical arcing and a fuel leak, leading to
a fuel ignition source and possible uncontrolled fire in the tail
cone of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspections, Adjustments, and Corrective Actions

    Within 25 flight hours or 180 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, do general visual inspections of
the fuel tube and right alternating current (AC) generator wires for
evidence of damage, do all applicable adjustments, and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Textron Aviation Service Letter SL560XL-24-07,
including Attachment, dated January 13, 2017. All applicable
adjustments and corrective actions must be done before further
flight.

(h) Reporting

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of
the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Textron
Aviation Inc. as specified in Textron Aviation Service Letter
SL560XL-24-07, including Attachment, dated January 13, 2017, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(j) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Craig Henrichsen,
Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics, ACE-119W, FAA,
Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower
Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Textron Aviation Service Letter SL560XL-24-07, including
Attachment, dated January 13, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone
316-517-6215; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/csupport/newlogin.jsp.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 9, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-03363 Filed 2-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34766-34767]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15670]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0696]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Marine City Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City,
MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of a portion of the St. Clair
River, Marine City, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators
and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Marine City
Fireworks display.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 10 p.m. on August 3,
2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0696 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department,
Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display
in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an
NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with
this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that
potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10 p.m. on August 3,
2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018 will be a safety concern to
anyone within a 420-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being
displayed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018
through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone will be enforced
from 10 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 3, 2018. In the case of
inclement weather on August 3, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced
from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone will
encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair River, Marine
City, MI, within a 420-foot radius of position 42[deg]43.15' N,
082[deg]29.2' W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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 rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule 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, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the St. Clair River from 10 p.m. on
August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. Moreover, the Coast
Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek
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 rule
will 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
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry into a
designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 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.T09-0696 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0696  Safety Zone; Marine City Fireworks, St. Clair
River, Marine City, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S.
navigable waters of the St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, within a 420-
foot radius of position 42[deg]43.15' N, 082[deg]29.2' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph
(a) of this section will be enforced from 10 p.m. through 11 p.m. on
August 3, 2018. In the case of inclement weather on August 3, 2018,
this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 4,
2018.
    (c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit
through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local
law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the
safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with
all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: July 17, 2018.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2018-15670 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P