[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72674-72675]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27656]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93797; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt New Rules 6.1P-O, 6.37AP-O,
6.40P-O, 6.41P-O, 6.62P-O, 6.64P-O, 6.76P-O, and 6.76AP-O and
Amendments to Rules 1.1, 6.1-O, 6.1A-O, 6.37-O, 6.65A-O and 6.96-O

December 16, 2021.
    On June 21, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt new Rules 6.1P-O (Applicability), 6.37AP-
O (Market Maker Quotations), 6.40P-O (Pre-Trade and Activity-Based Risk
Controls), 6.41P-O (Price Reasonability Checks--Orders and Quotes),
6.62P-O (Orders and Modifiers), 6.64P-O (Auction Process), 6.76P-O
(Order Ranking and Display), and 6.76AP-O (Order Execution and Routing)
and proposed amendments to Rules 1.1 (Definitions), 6.1-O
(Applicability, Definitions and References), 6.1A-O (Definitions and
References--OX), 6.37-O (Obligations of Market Makers), 6.65A-O (Limit-
Up and Limit-Down During Extraordinary Market Volatility), and 6.96-O
(Operation of Routing Broker) to reflect the implementation of the
Exchange's Pillar trading technology on its options market. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on July 9, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92304 (June 30,
2021), 86 FR 36440 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 18, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed

rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\5\ On September 28, 2021, the Exchange filed Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change, which superseded the proposed rule
change as originally filed in its entirety.\6\ On September 29, 2021,
the Commission published the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, for notice and comment and instituted proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.\7\ The Commission has received no comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92696, 86 FR 47350
(August 24, 2021). The Commission designated October 7, 2021, as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 is available on the Commission's website at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2021-47/srnysearca202147-9304467-259869.pdf.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93193, 86 FR 55926
(October 7, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
July 9, 2021.\9\ January 5, 2022 is 180 days from that date, and March
6, 2022 is 240 days from that date. The Commission finds it appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ designates March 6, 2022
as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (File No. SR-
NYSEArca-2021-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27656 Filed 12-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27819-27820]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11432]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66935; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the Pricing Schedule Regarding the Co-Location Super High Density
Cabinet Monthly Fee

May 7, 2012.
    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 April 27, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 modify Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Section
X(a), entitled ``Co-Location Services'' regarding the Exchange's co-
location super high-density cabinet monthly fee. The Exchange will
implement the proposed change on May 1, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Section
X(a) to reduce the co-location super high-density cabinet on-going
monthly fee from $15,000 per month to $13,000 per month. The
installation fee for the super high-density cabinet will remain the
same.
    Co-location customers have the option of obtaining several cabinet
sizes and power densities. The co-located customer may obtain a half
cabinet, a low density cabinet, a medium density cabinet, a medium-high
density cabinet and a high density cabinet.\3\ Each cabinet may vary in
size and maximum power capacity. The fees related to the cabinet and
power usage are incremental, with additional charges being imposed
based on higher levels of cabinet and/or power usage, the use of non-
standard cabinet sizes or special cabinet cooling equipment. The co-
location customer may obtain more power by choosing a combination of
lower power density cabinets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 7034(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange previously filed an immediately effective filing with
the Commission to offer another choice of cabinet, specifically a
larger cabinet (30'' W x 48'' D x 96'' H) with higher power (``Super
High Density Cabinet'') as an alternative to combining several units
for more power (>10kW<=17.3kW).\4\ Currently, the installation fee for
the Super High Density Cabinet is $7,000; and the on-going monthly fee
is $15,000. At this time, the Exchange proposes to reduce the current
on-going monthly fee to $13,000 to bring the fee in line with Exchange
fees for similar power levels using multiple cabinets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66429 (February 21,
2012), 77 FR 11611 (February 27, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed reduction of the on-going
monthly fee is reasonable because it is in line with Exchange fees for
similar power levels using multiple cabinets. Also, the Exchange
believes the reduction to the on-going monthly fee is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the super high-density power option is
entirely voluntary and available to all members; therefore, the
reduction is available to all members that select this power option.
Also, the Exchange believes the reduction in fees is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the reduction diminishes the disparity
in the Exchange's fees for various co-location power options. This
results in a more competitive cost structure for the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other trading venues. These competitive forces help to ensure that
the Exchange's fees are reasonable, equitably allocated, and not
unfairly discriminatory since market participants can largely avoid
fees to which they object by changing their operating venue.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange is reducing fees through this proposed Pricing Schedule
change, thereby enhancing the competitiveness of its co-location
offering.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2012-58 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 No. SR-Phlx-2012-58. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-58 and should be
submitted on or before June 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11432 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65625-65627]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26524]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Determination of Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone
Standard for the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester and Manchester Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is making four separate and independent air quality
determinations for two areas in New Hampshire. First, EPA is
determining that the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, New Hampshire serious
one-hour ozone nonattainment area met the applicable deadline of
November 15, 1999, for attaining the revoked one-hour National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Second, EPA is determining that
the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester area has attained the one-hour ozone
standard since 1999, and continues to attain the standard. Third, with
respect to the Manchester, New Hampshire marginal one-hour ozone
nonattainment area, EPA is determining that the area attained the one-
hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline of November 15, 1993.
Fourth, with respect to the Manchester area, EPA is determining that
the area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS since 1993, and
continues to attain the standard.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0229. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air
Quality Planning Unit, 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 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What actions is EPA taking?
    A. Portsmouth-Dover Rochester Area
    B. Manchester Area
II. What is the effect of these actions?
III. Final Actions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

A. Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester Area

    EPA is making two separate and independent final determinations for
the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester serious one-hour ozone nonattainment
area (hereafter, ``the Portsmouth area''). EPA is determining that the
Portsmouth area attained the revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable deadline of November 15, 1999. This determination is based
upon complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring
data for the 1997-1999 ozone seasons showing that the area had an
expected ozone exceedance rate below the level of the now revoked one-
hour ozone NAAQS during that period and therefore attained the standard
by its applicable deadline. EPA is also determining that the Portsmouth
area has attained the standard based on complete, certified and
quality-assured ozone monitoring data since 1999, and that it continues
to attain the standard based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data (2009-
2011). In addition, preliminary 2012 ozone data show the area continues
to attain.

B. Manchester Area

    EPA is making two separate and independent final determinations for
the Manchester, NH marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is
determining that the Manchester marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment
area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline of
November 15, 1993. This determination is based upon complete,
certified, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the
1991-1993 ozone seasons showing that the area had an expected ozone
exceedance rate below the level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS
during that period, and therefore attained the standard by its
applicable deadline. EPA is also determining that the Manchester area
has attained the one-hour ozone standard since 1993, and continues to
attain the standard based on the most recent three years of complete,
quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data (2009-2011). In
addition, preliminary 2012 ozone data show the area continues to
attain.
    Additional information related to these determinations and the
rationale for them are set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) published on July 19, 2012 (77 FR 42470) and will not be restated
here. EPA received no comments on the NPR.

II. What is the effect of these actions?

    After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue
to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding
requirements. See SCAQMD v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882, at 903 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
In keeping with this responsibility, EPA has determined that the
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area
attained the one-hour ozone standard by the area's applicable
attainment date of November 15, 1999. In this context, EPA has also
determined that there are no additional obligations under the revoked
one-hour ozone standard, including those relating to one-hour ozone
contingency measures, for the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester one-hour ozone
nonattainment area. EPA is also determining that the Manchester area
attained the one-hour ozone standard by the area's applicable
attainment date of November 15, 1993. As a marginal area, Manchester
was not subject to any requirement for contingency measures, and EPA
has determined that the area has no additional obligations under the
revoked one-hour ozone standard.

III. Final Actions

    EPA is making four separate and independent determinations. First,
EPA is determining that the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone
nonattainment area met the applicable deadline of November 15, 1999,
for attaining the one-hour NAAQS for ozone, based on 1997-1999
complete, certified and quality-assured ozone monitoring data. Second,
EPA is determining that the Portsmouth, NH area has attained the
standard based on complete, certified and quality-assured ozone
monitoring data since 1999, and that it continues to attain the
standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-
assured ozone monitoring data. In addition, preliminary 2012 ozone data
show the area continues to attain. Third, EPA is determining that the
Manchester, NH marginal ozone nonattainment area met the applicable
deadline of November 15, 1993, for attaining the revoked one-hour ozone
NAAQS. This determination is based upon complete, certified, quality-
assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 1991-1993
monitoring period showing that the area had an expected ozone
exceedance rate below the level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS
during that period and therefore attained the standard by its
applicable deadline. Fourth, with respect to the Manchester area, EPA
is determining, that the area has attained the one-hour ozone standard
since 1993, and continues to attain the standard based on the most
recent three years of complete, quality-assured and certified ozone
monitoring data. In addition, preliminary 2012 ozone data show the area
continues to attain.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    These actions make determinations of attainment based on air
quality, and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed
by state law. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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, these actions do not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 these actions 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 December 31, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 15, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
2. Section 52.1534 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1534  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (g) Determination of Attainment. Effective November 29, 2012, EPA
is determining that the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester one-hour ozone
nonattainment area met the one-hour ozone standard, by the area's
applicable attainment date of November 15, 1999, based on 1997-1999
complete, certified, quality-assured ozone monitoring data at all
monitoring sites in the area. Separate from and independent of this
determination, EPA is determining that the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester
serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the one-hour
ozone standard since 1999 and continues to attain based on complete,
quality-assured data ozone monitoring data through 2011.
    (h) Determination of Attainment. Effective November 29, 2012, EPA
is determining that the Manchester one-hour ozone nonattainment area
met the one-hour ozone standard, by the area's applicable attainment
date of November 15, 1993, based on 1991-1993 complete, certified,
quality-assured ozone monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the
area. Separate from and independent of this determination, EPA is
determining that the Manchester marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment
area has attained the one-hour ozone standard, since 1993, and that it
continues to attain based on complete quality-assured ozone monitoring
data through 2011.

[FR Doc. 2012-26524 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43190-43191]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC13-128-000.
    Applicants: Silver Merger Sub, Inc., Nevada Power Company, Sierra
Pacific Power Company, NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Silver Merger Sub, Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 9/10/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3212-001; ER11-3213-001; ER11-3214-001; ER13-
1855-001.
    Applicants: XO Energy NY, LP, XO Energy MA, LP, XO Energy MW, LP,
XO Energy SW., LP.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of XO Energy
Companies under ER11-3213-000, et. al.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1673-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.19a(b): Compliance Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1674-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
    Description: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 35.19a(b): Compliance Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1675-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Louisiana, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.19a(b): Compliance Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1676-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Mississippi, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.19a(b): Compliance Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1677-000.
    Applicants: Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
    Description: Entergy New Orleans, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.19a(b): Compliance Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1678-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Texas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.19a(b): Compliance Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1964-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue Position W1-108; Original Service Agreement No.
3590 to be effective 6/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1965-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.
    Description: NRG Wholesale Generation LP submits tariff filing per
35: Notice of Succession--MBR to be effective 7/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1966-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.
    Description: NRG Wholesale Generation LP submits tariff filing per
35: Notice of Succession--3 to be effective 7/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1967-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.
    Description: NRG Wholesale Generation LP submits tariff filing per
35: Notice of Succession--5 to be effective 7/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1968-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.
    Description: NRG Wholesale Generation LP submits tariff filing per
35: Notice of Succession--7 to be effective 7/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1969-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP.
    Description: NRG Wholesale Generation LP submits tariff filing per
35: Notice of Succession--8 to be effective 7/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES11-29-002.
    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to April 30, 2013 Application of Entergy
Texas, Inc., for extension of FPA Section 204 authorization.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 7/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ES13-35-000.
    Applicants: AEP West Virginia Transmission Company,
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for authorization to issue securities of AEP West Virginia Transmission
Company, Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130712-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 8/2/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17334 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10814-10816]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05060]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0017; FRL-9975-52-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; SC; Redesignation
of the Greenville-Spartanburg Unclassifiable Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 22, 2018, the State of South Carolina, through the
Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), submitted a
request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) unclassifiable area (hereinafter referred to as the
``Greenville Area'' or ``Area'') to unclassifiable/attainment for the
1997 primary and secondary annual PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). The Greenville Area is comprised of
Anderson, Greenville, and Spartanburg Counties in South Carolina. EPA
now has sufficient data to determine that the Greenville Area is in
attainment of the 1997 primary and secondary annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the State's request and
redesignate the Area to unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 primary
and secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon valid, quality-
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the
PM2.5 monitors in the Area are in compliance with the 1997
primary and secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0017 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air
quality management through the establishment and implementation of the
NAAQS. After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is
required to designate areas, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA,
as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. On July 18, 1997 (62
FR 38652), EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new
standards for PM2.5 (annual and 24-hour). The primary and
secondary annual standards were each set at a level of 15.0 micrograms
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations. The primary and secondary 24-hour
standards were each set at a level of 65 [micro]g/m\3\, based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA
established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous
health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated
with exposures to particulate matter.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. EPA and
state air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999, and deployed all air quality
monitors by January 2001. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA
designated areas across the country as nonattainment, unclassifiable,
or unclassifiable/attainment \1\ for the PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon air quality monitoring data from these monitors for calendar years
2001-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the initial PM area designations in 2005 (for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a designation category of
``unclassifiable/attainment'' for areas that had monitors showing
attainment of the standard and were not contributing to nearby
violations and for areas that did not have monitors but for which
EPA had reason to believe were likely attaining the standard and not
contributing to nearby violations. EPA used the category
``unclassifiable'' for areas in which EPA could not determine, based
upon available information, whether or not the NAAQS was being met
and/or EPA had not determined the area to be contributing to nearby
violations. EPA reserves the ``attainment'' category for when EPA
redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant
NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Greenville County, South Carolina, had a monitor with less than
three years of data since the monitor had not been in operation for the
full 2001-2003 period. Based upon the data that was obtained during its
operation, the monitor indicated a potential to violate the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Also, Anderson and Spartanburg Counties had
emissions and population levels that potentially contributed to the
elevated concentrations of PM2.5 at the Greenville monitor
in question. Therefore, EPA designated all three counties--Anderson,
Greenville and Spartanburg--as unclassifiable for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from unclassifiable
to unclassifiable/attainment?

    Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing
the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A)
provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state
that the designation of an area should be revised ``on the basis of air
quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air
quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.''
The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the
Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation
should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own
motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the
Administrator must approve or deny the request.
    When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA
bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the
considerations provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).\2\ In keeping with
section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to unclassifiable/
attainment must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus
must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute
to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS.
The relevant monitoring data must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality
System (AQS) database. The designated monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period

upon which the redesignation request is based.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also list specific
requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to
redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and therefore
are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from
unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment.
    \3\ See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, EPA Air Quality
Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (September 4, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate the Area?

    In order to redesignate the Area from unclassifiable to
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 primary and secondary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean
concentrations (i.e., design value) over the most recent 3-year period
must be less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at all monitoring
sites in the Area over the full 3-year period, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.18 and Appendix N of Part 50. EPA reviewed
PM2.5 monitoring data from monitoring stations in the
Greenville Area for the 1997 primary and secondary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 3-year period from 2014-2016. These data
have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded in AQS by South
Carolina, and the monitoring locations have not changed during the
monitoring period. As summarized in Table 1, the design values for the
monitors in the Area for the 2014-2016 period are well below the 1997
primary and secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

 Table 1--1997 Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in the Greenville
                           Area for 2014-2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2014-2016
             Local site name                Monitoring     Design value
                                               site        ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenville ESC..........................     45-045-0015             9.3
Hillcrest Middle School.................     45-045-0016             8.6
T.K. Gregg..............................     45-083-0011             8.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the 3-year design values, based on valid, quality-assured
data, demonstrate that the Area meets the 1997 primary and secondary
annual PM2.5 standards, EPA is proposing to redesignate the
Greenville Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for
this NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's January 22, 2018,
request to redesignate the Greenville Area from unclassifiable to
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 primary and secondary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. If finalized, approval of the redesignation
request would change the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, of
Anderson, Greenville, and Spartanburg Counties from unclassifiable to
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 primary and secondary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/
attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/
attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to redesignate an
area to unclassifiable/attainment and does not impose additional
requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because redesignations are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action to redesignate the Greenville
Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997
primary and secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not have
Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located
within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian
Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' However, because no tribal lands are
located within the Area and the redesignation does not create new
requirements, EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have
substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. EPA notes this proposed
action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments
or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    Dated: March 5, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-05060 Filed 3-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22279-22280]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4352-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Pueblo of Acoma; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
Pueblo of Acoma (FEMA-4352-DR), dated December 20, 2017, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 17, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 17, 2018, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the Pueblo of Acoma
resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of
October 4-6, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that
special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted regarding

Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of December 20, 2017, to
authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at
90 percent of total eligible costs.
    This adjustment to the cost sharing applies only to Public
Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such
adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at
75 percent of total eligible costs.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-10149 Filed 5-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 16, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31907-31908]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0208; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANM-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class E Airspace; Missoula, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class E airspace extending upward
from 1,200 feet above the surface at Missoula International Airport,
Missoula, MT.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 12, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the Class E airspace at Missoula International Airport,
Missoula, MT, to ensure the safety and management of instrument flight
rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 18488; April 9, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0208 to
modify the Class E airspace at Missoula International Airport,
Missoula, MT. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. One comment was received. The commenter suggested that the Class
E5 airspace boundaries should be expanded to encompass all of the Class
G airspace, extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, near
the airport. The FAA does not agree. Title 49 of the US Code provides
the FAA with its legal authority to manage the NAS. It also provides
that citizens of the United States have a public right of transit
through navigable airspace. Minimizing the volume of regulated airspace
ensures the FAA is being consistent to its legislated responsibilities.
Class E5 airspace is designed to contain IFR operations transitioning
to or from the terminal and en route environments. Expanding the
airspace boundaries for the sole purpose of reducing areas of Class G
airspace would not be appropriate.
    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace,
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at Missoula
International Airport, Missoula, MT. This airspace is designed to
contain IFR aircraft transitioning to/from the terminal and en route
environments. This action proposes to increase the airspace's radius of
the airport from 35 miles to 46 miles. The 46-mile radius will properly
contain IFR aircraft transitioning to/from the airport.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Missoula, MT [Amended]

Missoula International Airport, MT
    (Lat. 46[deg]54'59'' N, long. 114[deg]05'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 3.5 miles each side of the 311[deg] bearing extending from
the Class D 4.4-mile radius to 22.3 miles northwest of the airport,
and 1.6 miles west and 4.3 miles east of the 179[deg] bearing
extending from the Class D 4.4-mile radius to 15.2 miles south of
the airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
about the surface within a 46-mile radius of the Missoula
International Airport.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 10, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-12662 Filed 6-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 70877]
[DOCID:fr13de07-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0107]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of open teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference of the National
Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC). The purpose of the
teleconference is for NOSAC to vote on accepting the Subcommittee
report ``MARPOL Annex II Application to new Offshore Supply Vessels in
International Service.''

DATES: The teleconference call will take place on Monday, January 14,
2008, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Members of the committee and public may participate by
coming to Room 1303, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters; 2100 Second Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. We request that members of the public
who plan to attend this meeting notify Mr. Jim Magill at<PHONE_NUMBER>
so that he may notify building security officials. This notice and the
report is available on our online docket, USCG-2007-0107, at http://www.regulations.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR John Cushing, Executive Director
of NOSAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or Mr. Jim Magill, Assistant Executive
Director of NOSAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
Committee members and members of the public may participate by dialing
1-888-220-3046 on a touch-tone phone. You will then be prompted to
enter your ``participant code number,'' which is 2556102.
Please ensure that you enter the  mark after the participant
code. Public participation is welcomed; however, the number of
teleconference lines is limited, and lines are available first-come,
first-served.

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the Monday, January 14th, 2008 teleconference
Committee meeting is as follows:

10 a.m.-10:05 a.m.

    Welcome and Opening Remarks--NOSAC Chairman Mr. Chuck Bedell.

10:05 a.m.-10:30 a.m.

    Open discussion concerning the Subcommittee report ``MARPOL Annex
II Application to new Offshore Supply Vessels in International
Service.''

10:30a.m.-10:45 a.m.

    Public comment period.

10:45 a.m.-11 a.m.

    NOSAC vote on the report ``MARPOL Annex II Application to new
Offshore Supply Vessels in International Service.''

11 a.m.

    Adjourn.
    This agenda is subject to change and the meeting may adjourn early
if all Committee business has been completed.

Public Participation

    The Chairman of NOSAC is empowered to conduct the teleconference in
a way that will, in his judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. During its teleconference, the Committee welcomes public
comment. The Committee will make every effort to hear the views of all
interested parties, including the public. Written comments may be
submitted on or before the day of the teleconference (SEE ADDRESSES).

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Mr. Magill as soon as possible.

    Dated: December 6, 2007.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
 [FR Doc. E7-24127 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48931-48933]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20066]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65019; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-073]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend its Fees Schedule and Circular Regarding Trading
Permit Holder Application and Other Related Fees

August 3, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 1, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by CBOE. 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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and circular
regarding Trading Permit Holder application and other related fees
(``Trading Permit Fee Circular'') to amend the fee assessed to Floor
Broker Trading Permit Holders that conduct a certain level of activity
in CBOE Volatility Index (``VIX'') options. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at
the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE 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
    CBOE Rule 2.20 grants the Exchange the authority to, from time to
time, fix the fees and charges payable by Trading Permit Holders. CBOE
is proposing to amend its Fees Schedule and Trading Permit Fee Circular
effective August 1, 2011 to amend the fee assessed to Floor Broker
Trading Permit Holders that conduct a certain level of activity in VIX
(``VIX Floor Broker Fee'') to assess one $1,000 fee monthly to each
Trading Permit Holder and TPH organization that maintains one or more
Floor Broker Trading Permits that collectively meet the criteria for
the assessment of the VIX Floor Broker Fee rather than assessing the
Fee to each Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder. CBOE is also proposing
to eliminate one of the requirements used to calculate the minimum
level of activity in VIX that subjects a Floor Broker Trading Permit
Holder to this fee.
    CBOE assesses a tier appointment fee to CBOE Market-Maker Trading
Permit Holders for certain proprietary classes in recognition of the
cost to develop those products and of the profit potential in those
classes.\3\ Additionally, TPH organizations frequently staff more than
one Market-Maker in the VIX trading crowd, as in doing so, each Market-
Maker present in the trading crowd may participate on a trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CBOE Rule 8.3(e) provides that the Exchange may establish
one or more types of tier appointments. In accordance with CBOE Rule
8.3(e), a tier appointment is an appointment to trade one or more
options classes that must be held by a Market-Maker to be eligible
to act as a Market-Maker in the options class or options classes
subject to that appointment. CBOE currently assesses a $1,000
monthly VIX Tier Appointment fee. The VIX Tier Appointment fee is
assessed to any Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder that either (a)
has a VIX Tier Appointment at any time during a calendar month; or
(b) conducts any transactions in VIX at any time during a calendar
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2011, CBOE amended its Fees Schedule to establish a fee
(the VIX Floor Broker Fee) to be assessed to any Floor Broker Trading
Permit Holder (a) that executes more than 20,000 VIX contracts during
the month and (b) whose aggregate VIX executed contracts during the
month comprise more than

30% of the Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder's exchange-wide total
executed contracts.\4\ This fee was implemented to reflect the
opportunity provided to agents servicing customers in such a high-
volume, fast-growing product. In addition, CBOE implemented this fee
for Floor Broker Trading Permit Holders in an effort to equalize this
opportunity between Market-Makers and Floor Brokers in VIX options.
Specifically, the VIX Floor Broker Fee is assessed to CBOE Floor Broker
Trading Permit Holders in recognition of the type of business that is
conducted in VIX options classes through solicitation of interest for
contra parties on orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63706 (January 12,
2011), 76 FR 3184 (January 19, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is proposing to simplify the manner in which this fee is
assessed by (i) allocating one fee to each Trading Permit Holder or TPH
organization that maintains more than one Floor Broker Trading Permit
and that collectively through those Floor Broker Trading Permits meets
the criteria to be assessed the VIX Floor Broker Fee rather than to
assess the VIX Floor Broker Fee in that instance for each of the
individual Floor Broker Trading Permits; and (ii) removing the
criterion for the assessment of the fee that looks to aggregate VIX
executed contracts during the month in relation to a Floor Broker
Trading Permit Holder's exchange-wide total executed contracts.
Instead, the only applicable requirement for assessment of the fee
would be the current first criterion (i.e. whether more than 20,000 VIX
contracts have been executed during the month). For example, under the
proposal, if Trading Permit Holder A has one Floor Broker Trading
Permit that is utilized to execute VIX options transactions (acronym
ABC), Trading Permit Holder A will be assessed a single $1,000 monthly
fee if ABC's executions exceed 20,000 contracts per month. If Trading
Permit Holder B has two Floor Broker Trading Permits that are utilized
to execute VIX options transactions (acronyms DEF and XYZ), the VIX
executions of DEF and XYZ shall be aggregated for purposes of
determining this additional monthly fee and Trading Permit Holder B
shall be charged a single $1,000 fee for the combined VIX executions
through DEF and XYZ if the executions exceed 20,000 contracts per
month. Thus, if DEF executes 15,000 VIX contracts and XYZ executes
10,000 contracts in August 2011, Trading Permit Holder B will be
assessed a single $1,000 VIX Floor Broker Fee for the month of August
2011.
    CBOE believes the proposal to allocate one fee to each Trading
Permit Holder or TPH organization, as applicable, is reasonable and
appropriate in that each Market-Maker present in the VIX trading crowd
has the ability to participate on a trade, regardless of whether those
Market-Makers are associated with the same TPH organization. However,
for Floor Broker Trading Permit Holders, each Trading Permit Holder or
TPH organization, as a single agent, is limited in their ability to
participate on behalf of any account in which the Trading Permit Holder
has an interest or on behalf of a non-Market-Maker customer to a single
Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder.\5\ The presence of multiple Floor
Broker Trading Permit Holders that are associated with the same TPH
organization does not provide additional participation rights. Only one
Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder associated with a TPH organization
representing such a proprietary or non-Market-Maker customer account
may participate on each transaction. Therefore, CBOE believes the
assessment of one VIX Floor Broker fee to each Trading Permit Holder or
TPH organization is appropriate and reasonable to ensure it is in
congruence with that level of opportunity available to Floor Broker
Trading Permit Holders in comparison to Market-Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Rule 6.55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposal will level the playing field between
Trading Permit Holders and TPH organizations that maintain multiple
Floor Broker Trading Permits in VIX rather than one Floor Broker
Trading Permit in VIX. Under the existing structure, Trading Permit
Holders may have only one Floor Broker Trading Permit assigned to
execute orders in VIX but may have others providing VIX orders to that
particular Floor Broker for execution. This enables these Trading
Permit Holders and TPH organizations to avoid being assessed more than
one VIX Floor Broker Fee. Thus, this proposal will eliminate the
disparity between the VIX Floor Broker Fees that are assessed to those
Trading Permit Holders or TPH organizations that elect to maintain
multiple Floor Broker Trading Permits to execute VIX orders and those
that choose to only maintain one Floor Broker Trading Permit to execute
VIX orders.
    In addition, by removing the 30% aggregate calculation, affiliated
Trading Permit Holders and TPH organizations will be able to better
monitor whether the fee will be assessed throughout the month. Based on
the numbers generated for May 2011, the removal of this criterion would
not subject additional Trading Permit Holders to the fee.
    In addition to the proposed changes to the Fees Schedule described
above, CBOE is proposing to revise its regulatory circular that sets
forth the existing Trading Permit Holder application and other related
fees. The Exchange proposes to revise this circular to incorporate the
changes to Section 10 of the CBOE Fees Schedule that are described
above. The proposed changes to the circular are included as Exhibit 2
to the Form 19b-4.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change will treat all Trading Permit Holders in
the same manner and is equitable and not discriminatory in that there
is an objective test for the application of this fee. CBOE believes
this proposal is reasonable in that, based on the data for May 2011,
the removal of the criterion that aggregates VIX executed contracts
during the month to determine if the aggregated amount comprises more
than 30% of the Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder's exchange-wide
total executed contracts does not appear to increase, in and of itself,
the number of Trading Permit Holders that are subject to this fee. In
addition, CBOE believes the assessment of one VIX Floor Broker fee to
each Trading Permit Holder or TPH organizations is reasonable to ensure
it is in congruence with that level of opportunity available to Floor
Broker Trading Permit Holders as compared to the level of opportunity
available to Market-Makers. Further, the assessment of one fee to each
Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization ``levels the playing field''
for Trading Permit Holders and TPH organizations that maintain more
than one Floor Broker Trading Permit to execute orders in VIX options.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2011-073 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-CBOE-2011-073. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. 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-CBOE-2011-073 and should be
submitted on or before August 30, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20066 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19248-19250]
[DOCID:fr14ap10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0213]
RIN 1625-AA00

Subject: Safety Zone; Sea World Summer Nights Fireworks, Mission
Bay, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of Mission Bay in support of the Sea World Summer Nights
Fireworks. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other
vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited
from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from March 27, 2010 through September 6,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0213 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0213 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Corey McDonald, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-
7262, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of vessels, spectators, participants, and others in
the vicinity of the marine event on the dates and times this rule will
be in effect and delay would be contrary to the public interest.
    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 because delaying the effective date
would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is
needed to ensure the public's safety.

Background and Purpose

    Sea World is sponsoring the Sea World Summer Nights Fireworks,
which

will include a fireworks presentation from a barge in Mission Bay. A
temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone that will
be enforced from 8:50 p.m. to 10 p.m. on March 27, 2010 through
September 6, 2010. The limits of the safety zone are a 600 foot radius
around the barge in approximate position 32[deg]46'03'' N,
117[deg]13'11'' W. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of the crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and
users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative. Before the effective period, the coast Guard will
publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast
notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the
safety zone is enforced.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based
on the enforcement and location of the safety zone. Vessels will be
able to transit around the safety zone. Furthermore, this safety zone
will only be enforced from 8:50 p.m. through 10 p.m. nightly, so
vessels can transit the zone during other periods. Persons and vessels
will be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during
the specified times if they receive permission from the Captain of the
Port or his designated representative.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective
period, the coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM)
and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via marine
channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is enforced.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because

it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
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 is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-304 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-304  Safety zone; Sea World Summer Nights Fireworks;
Mission Bay, San Diego, California.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include a 600 foot
radius around the barge in approximate position 32[deg]46'03'' N,
117[deg]13'11'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8:50
p.m. to 10 p.m. on March 27, 2010 through September 6, 2010. If the
event concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of
the Port will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce
that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, State, and Federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Sector San Diego
Command Center. The Command Center may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel
16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 29, 2010.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2010-8530 Filed 4-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 56844]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of
Authority

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
entitled ``Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of
Authority'' that appeared in the Federal Register of August 14, 2023.
The document announced amendments to the organization structure for
FDA, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of
Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation (OST). Although HHS
approved these amendments on June 27, 2023, the Notice inadvertently
omitted to include the following language: ``FDA will not implement the
new organizational structure until after the necessary requirements are
completed.'' This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Huttenlocker, Associate
Director for Management, Office of Management, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 66, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-743- 1760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of August 14, 2023
(88 FR 55053), in FR Doc. 2023-17379, the following corrections are
made:
    1. On page 55053, in the second column, in the Dates section, after
the first sentence, add ``FDA will not implement the new organizational
structure until after the necessary requirements are completed.''
    2. On page 55053, in the third column, in section III., remove the
first sentence and add in its place, ``After completion of the
necessary requirements for implementation, this reorganization will be
reflected in FDA's Staff Manual Guide (SMG).''

    Dated: August 17, 2023.
Elizabeth J. Gramling,
Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-18009 Filed 8-17-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P