[Federal Register: September 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 187)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49815-49821]
[DOCID:fr29se09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0884]
RIN 1625-AA11

Safety Zone and Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone and regulated
navigation area on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal near Romeoville,
IL. This temporary final rule places navigational and operational
restrictions on all vessels transiting the navigable waters located
adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
electrical dispersal fish barrier system.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 5 p.m. on September
29, 2009, until 5 p.m. on October 16, 2009. This temporary final rule
is enforceable with actual notice by Coast Guard personnel beginning
September 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0884 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0884 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 final rule, call CDR Tim Cummins, Deputy Prevention Division,
Ninth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) made the decision, without time for a proper notice period, to
permanently increase the voltage of the fish barrier to two-volts per
inch in response to data which indicates that Asian carp are closer to
the Great Lakes waterway system than originally thought. The electric
current in the water created by the electrical dispersal barriers
coupled

with the uncertainty of the effects of the increased voltage poses a
safety risk to commercial vessels and recreational boaters who transit
the area. Therefore, it would be against the public interest to delay
the issuing of this rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because of the safety risk to
commercial vessels and recreational boaters who transit the area. The
following discussion and the Background and Purpose section below
provide additional support of the Coast Guard's determination that good
cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule
effective less than 30 days after publication.
    In 2002, the USACE energized a demonstration electrical dispersal
barrier located in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The
demonstration barrier, commonly referred to as ``Barrier I,'' generates
a low-voltage electric field (one-volt per inch) across the canal,
which connects the Illinois River to Lake Michigan. Barrier I was built
to block the passage of aquatic nuisance species, such as Asian carp,
and prevent them from moving between the Mississippi River basin and
Great Lakes via the canal. In 2006, the USACE completed construction of
a new barrier, ``Barrier IIA.'' Because of its design, Barrier IIA can
generate a more powerful electric field (up to four-volts per inch),
over a larger area within the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, than
Barrier I. Testing was conducted by the USACE which indicated that two-
volts per inch is the optimal voltage to deter aquatic nuisance
species. The USACE's original plan was to perform testing on the
effects of the increased voltage on vessels passing through the fish
barrier prior to permanently increasing the voltage. However, after
receiving data that the Asian carp were closer to the Great Lakes than
expected, the decision was made to immediately energize the barrier to
two-volts per inch without prior testing.
    A comprehensive, independent analysis of Barrier IIA, conducted in
2008 by the USACE at the one-volt per inch level, found a serious risk
of injury or death to persons immersed in the water located adjacent to
and over the barrier. Additionally, sparking between barges transiting
the barrier (a risk to flammable cargoes) occurred at the one-volt per
inch level. The Coast Guard and USACE developed regulations and safety
guidelines, with stakeholder input, which addressed the risks and
hazards associated with operating the barriers at the one-volt per inch
level. These regulations were published in 33 CFR 165.923, 70 FR 76692
(Dec 28, 2005) and in a series of temporary final rules: 71 FR 4488
(Jan 27, 2006); 71 FR 19648 (Apr 17, 2006); 73 FR 33337 (Jun 12, 2008);
73 FR 37810 (Jul 2, 2008); 73 FR 45875 (Aug 7, 2008); and 73 FR 63633
(Oct 27, 2008). A temporary interim rule was issued on February 9, 2009
(74 FR 6352). Finally, an NPRM was issued on May 26, 2009 (74 FR
24722).
    In early August, 2008, the USACE notified the Coast Guard that it
planned to immediately increase the voltage of Barrier IIA to two-volts
per inch on a full-time basis starting August 17, 2009. Both Barrier
IIA and Barrier I will operate at the same time; hence, Barrier I will
provide a redundant back up to Barrier IIA.
    In the past, the Coast Guard has advised the USACE that it has no
objection to the activation of Barrier IIA and Barrier I at a maximum
strength of one-volt per inch. Testing on commercial vessels transiting
the canal over the fish barrier was conducted at one volt per inch
indicating that although the barriers create risks to people and
vessels, those risks could be mitigated by following certain
procedures. These mitigation procedures for the barrier operating at
one volt per inch were implemented in a temporary interim rule
establishing a regulated navigation area and safety zone that was
published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2009 (74 FR 6352), as
well as an NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2009 (74
FR 24722).
    However, both of these rulemakings reflected the prior operating
parameters of the dispersal barriers and contemplated further testing
of the effects of higher voltages on commercial and recreational
vessels as well as people. The USACE began safety testing in
consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard on August 17, 2009, to test
various configurations of commercial tugs and barges as well as
recreational vessels with non-conductive hulls passing through the
Barriers at increased voltage and operating parameters. Because the
USACE decided that the voltage and operating parameters had to be
immediately increased prior to the completion of safety testing, the
USCG determined that temporary closure of the canal to all vessels
through a safety zone was necessary until the risks were better
understood. This resulted in successive temporary final rules that
suspended the prior temporary interim rule. These temporary final rules
enacting safety zones were published in the Federal Register on August
26, 2009 (74 FR 43055) and September 02, 2009 (74 FR 45318).
    Because testing and analysis of the risks to persons and vessels
are ongoing and immediate action is needed to prevent injury to people
and vessels, it was not possible to provide a full notice and comment
period. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan retains the authority to
permit vessels to enter the safety zone. As safety testing results
become available, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will make every
effort to permit vessels to pass for which there is a decreased or
known risk of injury or property damage. If vessels wish to enter the
safety zone they must receive permission from the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan to do so and must follow all orders from the Captain of
the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative while
in the zone.
    If, for any reasons, the safety zone is at any time suspended, the
terms of the regulated navigation area will apply to all vessels. The
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will cause notice of the enforcement
of the regulated navigation area to be made by all appropriate means to
effect the widest publicity among the affected segments of the public.

Background and Purpose

    The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996,
authorized the USACE to conduct a demonstration project to identify an
environmentally sound method for preventing and reducing the dispersal
of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species through the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal. The USACE selected an electric barrier because it is a
non-lethal deterrent with a proven history, which does not overtly
interfere with navigation in the canal.
    A demonstration dispersal barrier (Barrier I) was constructed and
has been in operation since April 2002. It is located approximately 30
miles from Lake Michigan and creates an electric field in the water by
pulsing low voltage DC current through steel cables secured to the
bottom of the canal. A second barrier, Barrier IIA, was constructed 800
to 1,300 feet downstream of the Barrier I. The potential field strength
for Barrier IIA will be up to four times that of the Barrier I. Barrier
IIA was successfully operated for the first time for approximately
seven weeks in September and October 2008, while Barrier I was taken
down for maintenance. Construction on a third barrier (Barrier IIB) is
planned; Barrier

IIB would augment the capabilities of Barriers I and IIA.
    In the spring of 2004, a commercial towboat operator reported an
electrical arc between a wire rope and timberhead while making up a tow
in the vicinity of the Barrier I. During subsequent USACE safety
testing in January 2005, sparking was observed at points where metal-
to-metal contact occurred between two barges in the barrier field.
    The electric current in the water also poses a safety risk to
commercial and recreational boaters transiting the area. The Navy
Experimental Diving Unit (NEDU) was tasked with researching how the
electric current from the barriers would affect a human body if
immersed in the water. The NEDU final report concluded that the
possible effects to a human body if immersed in the water include
paralysis of body muscles, inability to breathe, and ventricular
fibrillation.
    A Safety Work Group facilitated by the Coast Guard and in
partnership with the USACE and industry initially met in February 2008
and focused on three goals: (1) Education and public outreach, (2)
keeping people out of the water, and (3) egress/rescue efforts. The
Safety Work Group has regularly been attended by eleven stakeholders.
Key partners include the American Waterways Operators, Illinois River
Carriers Association, Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District, Coast
Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan/
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, and the Ninth Coast Guard District.
    Based on the safety hazards associated with electric current
flowing through navigable waterways and the uncertainty of the effects
of higher voltage on people and vessels that pass over and adjacent to
the barriers, the Coast Guard is closing the waterway until proper
testing and analysis of such testing can be completed by the USACE. The
Coast Guard appreciates the commercial significance of this waterway
and will work closely with the USACE to re-open the waterway as soon as
possible; however, it is imperative that this safety zone be
immediately enacted to avoid loss of life.
    As soon as safety testing and analysis are completed, the Coast
Guard plans on publishing a new temporary interim rule (TIR) with
requests for comments. Although the Coast Guard anticipates being able
to permit some vessels to transit through the fish barrier after
testing is complete, it is currently anticipated any subsequent TIR
will continue to place restrictions on vessels including prohibiting
some vessels from transiting through the fish barrier entirely. The
Coast Guard will then likely follow with a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in order to provide a complete notice and
comment period for interested parties. We encourage the public to
participate in the rulemaking process by submitting and reviewing
comments and related materials at http://www.regulations.gov to the
dockets associated with the anticipated TIR and any subsequent NPRM/
SNPRM.
    Affected parties are reminded that the USACE may again raise the
operating parameters of the fish barrier in response to ongoing tests
regarding the effectiveness of the barrier on the Asian Carp. If this
occurs, it is possible that fewer vessels will be given permission to
enter the safety zone until further safety testing and analysis can be
completed and current timelines for a final rule will be extended.

Discussion of Rule

    This temporary final rule removes 33 CFR 165.T09-1247. This rule
suspends 33 CFR 165.923 until 5 p.m. on October 16, 2009. This rule
places a safety zone on all waters located adjacent to and over the
electrical dispersal barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
The safety zone will be enforced at all times the USACE operates the
electrical dispersal barrier higher than one volt per inch until safety
testing is conducted that indicates vessels may safely pass. The Coast
Guard has deemed this safety zone necessary from September 18, 2009,
until October 16, 2009, because safety testing is still being conducted
on vessels to determine whether and under what conditions vessels can
safely pass adjacent to and over the electrical dispersal barriers.
Although every effort will be made to permit vessels to pass as
information becomes available; current estimates indicate that testing
and analysis will not be completed by the USACE until at least October
16, 2009. Therefore, this safety zone is necessary until that time in
order to prevent loss of life and damage to property.
    This safety zone, which encompasses all the waters of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal located between mile marker 296.0
(approximately 958 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge) and mile marker
296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of
Romeo Road Bridge), will be enforced by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan, for such times before, during, and after barrier testing as
he or she deems necessary to protect mariners and vessels from damage
or injury. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will cause notice of
enforcement or suspension of enforcement of this safety zone to be made
by all appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among the
affected segments of the public. Such means of notification will
include, but is not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local
Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of
the safety zone is suspended. In addition, Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan maintains a telephone line that is manned 24-hours a day,
seven days a week. The public can obtain information concerning
enforcement of the safety zone by contacting the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan via the Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan Command Center
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In the event that the enforcement of the safety zone is temporarily
suspended, this rule implements a regulated navigation area to control
the movements of all vessels passing over and adjacent to the barriers.
The Captain of the Pork Lake Michigan will cause notice of the
enforcement of the regulated navigation area to be made by all
appropriate means to effect the widest publicity among the affected
segments of the public. This regulated navigation area closely mirrors
those previously implemented in this area. The regulated navigation
area encompasses all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
located between mile marker 295.0 (approximately 1.1 miles south of the
Romeo Road Bridge) and mile marker 297.5 (approximately 1.3 miles
northeast of the Romeo Road Bridge). The requirements placed on
commercial vessels include: (1) Vessels engaged in commercial service,
as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(5), may not pass (meet or overtake) in the
regulated navigation area and must make a SECURITE call when
approaching the regulated navigation area to announce intentions and
work out passing arrangements on either side; (2) commercial tows
transiting the regulated navigation area must be made up with wire rope
to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow; and
(3) all up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain one or more red
flag barges must be assisted by a bow boat until the entire tow is
clear of the regulated navigation area. Red flag barges are barges
certificated to carry, in bulk, any hazardous material as defined in 46
CFR 150.115. Currently, 46 CFR 150.115 defines hazardous material as:

    (a) A flammable liquid as defined in 46 CFR 30.10-22 or a
combustible liquid as defined in 46 CFR 30.10-15;
    (b) A material listed in Table 151.05, Table 1 of part 153, or
Table 4 of part 154 of Title 46, CFR; or
    (c) A liquid, liquefied gas, or compressed gas listed in 49 CFR
172.101.
    In the past, the USACE contracted for bow boat assistance for barge
tows containing one or more red flag barges. According to the USACE,
operators of tows containing one or more red flag barges should notify
the bow boat contractor at least two hours prior to the need for
assistance. The tow operator should then remain in contact with the
contractor after the initial call for bow boat assistance and advise
the contractor of any delays. Information on how to arrange for bow
boat assistance may be obtained by contacting the Army Corps of
Engineers at<PHONE_NUMBER>, during normal working hours. All mariners
are reminded that the Coast Guard does not provide bow boat assistance.
During testing of the barrier, the USACE has contracted for bow boat
assistance for commercial vessels. However, there is no guarantee that
the USACE will continue to fund bow boat assistance. In the event such
funding stops, mariners should be ready to arrange for their own bow
boat assistance.
    This temporary final rule places additional restrictions and
operating requirements on all vessels within a smaller portion of the
regulated navigation area, specifically, the waters between the Romeo
Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7
(aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo
Road Bridge). Within this smaller area, this temporary final rule
prohibits all vessels from loitering, mooring or laying up on the right
or left descending banks, or making or breaking tows on the waters
between the Romeo Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile
marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north
east of Romeo Road Bridge). In addition, vessels may only enter the
waters between the Romeo Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18)
and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles
north east of Romeo Road Bridge) for the sole purpose of transiting to
the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit. All
vessels and persons are prohibited from dredging, laying cable,
dragging, fishing, conducting salvage operations, or any other
activity, which could disturb the bottom of the canal in the area
located between the Romeo Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18)
and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles
north east of Romeo Road Bridge). The temporary final rule also
requires all personnel on open decks to wear a Coast Guard approved
Type I personal flotation device while on the waters between the Romeo
Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7
(aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo
Road Bridge).
    These restrictions are necessary for safe navigation of the
regulated navigation area and to ensure the safety of vessels and their
personnel as well as the public's safety due to the electrical
discharges noted during safety tests conducted by the USACE. Deviation
from this temporary final rule is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District or his
designated representatives. The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District
designates Captain of the Port Lake Michigan and Commanding Officer,
Marine Safety Unit Chicago, as his designated representatives for the
purposes of the regulated navigation area.

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 minimal. This
determination is based the following: (1) Initial test results at the
current operating parameters of two volts per inch indicate that the
majority of commercial and recreational vessels that regularly transit
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal will be permitted to enter the
safety zone under certain conditions; (2) those vessels that will not
be permitted to pass through the barrier may be permitted, on a case by
case basis, to pass via a dead ship tow by a commercial vessel that is
able to transit; and, (3) in exigent circumstances, it may be possible
to temporarily drop the voltage of the fish barrier back to one volt
per inch.
    Because this safety zone must be implemented immediately without a
full notice and comment period, the full economic impact of this rule
is difficult to determine at this time. The Coast Guard urges
interested parties to submit comments that specifically address the
economic impacts of permanent or temporary closures of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal. Comments can be made online by going to http:/
/www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0884 in the ``Keyword'' box,
and then clicking ``Search.''

Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
agencies to consider whether regulatory actions 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. An RFA analysis is not required when a
rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C.
553(b). The Coast Guard determined that this rule is exempt from notice
and comment rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Therefore, an
RFA analysis is not required for this rule. The Coast Guard,
nonetheless, expects that this temporary final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 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 effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights
protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this
rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes
that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options
for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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
that this action is one of the category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
section 2.B.2 Figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction and
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required. This rule involves the establishing,
disestablishing, or changing of regulated navigation areas and security
or safety zones. 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.

0
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;
Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  165.T09-1247  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  165.T09-1247.

Sec.  165.923  [Suspended]

0
3. Section 165.923 is suspended until October 16, 2009.
0
4. A new temporary section 165.T09-0884 is added as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0884  Safety Zone and Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL.

    (a) Safety Zone.
    (1) The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal located between mile marker 296.0
(approximately 958 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge) and mile marker
296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of
Romeo Road Bridge).
    (2) Enforcement Period. The safety zone will be enforced from 5
p.m. on September 18, 2009, until 5 p.m. on October 16, 2009. This
safety zone is enforceable with actual notice by Coast Guard personnel
beginning September 18, 2009.
    (3) Notice of suspension of enforcement. The Captain of the Port

Lake Michigan will enforce the safety zone established by this section
at all times. However, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may
temporarily suspend enforcement of the safety zone. If enforcement of
the zone is temporarily suspended, the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan will cause a notice of the suspension of enforcement of this
safety zone to be made by all appropriate means to effect the widest
publicity among the affected segments of the public including
publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with
33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include but are
not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to
Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will also issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners notifying the
public when the temporary suspension of enforcement is over and the
zone is once again in operation.
    (4) Regulations.
    (i) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan, or her on-scene representative.
    (ii) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-
scene representative.
    (iii) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on her
behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan will be aboard a Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or other
designated vessel or will be on shore and will communicate with vessels
via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan
or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF-FM radio
Channel 16.
    (iv) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her
on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or her on-scene representative.
    (v) If a vessel is permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or her on-scene representative to transit the safety zone, all
personnel on open decks must wear a Coast Guard approved Type I
personal flotation device while in the safety zone.
    (5) Persons on board any vessel transiting this safety zone in
accordance with the rule or otherwise are advised they do so at their
own risk.
    (b) Regulated Navigation Area. The following is a Regulated
Navigation Area: All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
Romeoville, IL located between mile marker 295.0 (approximately 1.1
miles south of the Romeo Road Bridge) and mile marker 297.5
(approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the Romeo Road Bridge).
    (1) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    Designated representatives means the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Unit Chicago.
    Red flag barge means any barge certificated to carry any hazardous
material in bulk.
    Hazardous material means any material as defined in 46 CFR 150.115.
    Bow boat means a towing vessel capable of providing positive
control of the bow of a tow containing one or more barges, while
transiting the regulated navigation area. The bow boat must be capable
of preventing a tow containing one or more barges from coming into
contact with the shore and other moored vessels.
    (2) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement. The Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan will enforce the regulated navigation area
established by this section only upon notice. Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan will cause notice of the enforcement of this regulated
navigation area to be made by all appropriate means to effect the
widest publicity among the affected segments of the public including
publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with
33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include but are
not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to
Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners notifying the public
when enforcement of this regulated navigation area is suspended.
    (3) Regulations.
    (i) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.13 apply.
    (ii) All up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain one or
more red flag barges transiting through the regulated navigation area
must be assisted by a bow boat until the entire tow is clear of the
regulated navigation area.
    (iii) Vessels engaged in commercial service, as defined in 46 U.S.C
2101(5), may not pass (meet or overtake) in the regulated navigation
area and must make a SECURITE call when approaching the regulated
navigation area to announce intentions and work out passing
arrangements on either side.
    (iv) Commercial tows transiting the regulated navigation area must
be made up with wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all
segments of the tow.
    (v) All vessels are prohibited from loitering between the Romeo
Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7
(aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo
Road Bridge).
    (vi) Vessels may enter the waters between the Romeo Road Bridge
(approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline
located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo Road Bridge) for
the sole purpose of transiting to the other side and must maintain
headway throughout the transit. All vessels and persons are prohibited
from dredging, laying cable, dragging, fishing, conducting salvage
operations, or any other activity, which could disturb the bottom of
the canal in the area located between the Romeo Road Bridge
(approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline
located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo Road Bridge).
    (vii) All personnel on open decks must wear a Coast Guard approved
Type I personal flotation device while in the waters between the Romeo
Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7
(aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo
Road Bridge).
    (viii) Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left
descending banks of the waters between the Romeo Road Bridge
(approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline
located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo Road Bridge).
    (ix) Towboats may not make or break tows if any portion of the
towboat or tow is located in the waters between the Romeo Road Bridge
(approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline
located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo Road Bridge).
    (4) Compliance. All persons and vessels must comply with this
section and any additional instructions or orders of the Ninth Coast
Guard District Commander, or his designated representatives. Any person
on board any vessel transiting this regulated navigation area in
accordance with this

rule or otherwise does so at their own risk.
    (5) Waiver. For any vessel, the Ninth Coast Guard District
Commander, or his designated representatives, may waive any of the
requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions
or other circumstances are such that application of this section is
unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of vessel and mariner
safety.

    Dated: September 18, 2009.
D.R. Callahan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. E9-23443 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report  As of July 31, 2013

Ordered by state code(s)  All Carbon Monoxide areas were redesignated to maintenance areas as of September 27, 2010.  The NO2 nonattainment area became a maintenance area on September 22, 1998.                                     State(s)                          General Area Name (see note)                      2010 Population in 1000s (area count)

                               8-Hr Ozone (2008)                                8-Hr Ozone (1997)                                  PM-2.5 (2006)                                  PM-2.5 (1997)                                      PM-10                                       SO2                                   Lead (2008)                                      Lead AK  Fairbanks     87(1)           AL  Troy             2(1)   AZ  Ajo         9(1)       AZ  Douglas/Paul Spur (Cochise County)         17(1)       AZ  Hayden/Miami         26(2) 5(1)     AZ  Nogales     31(1)   30(1)       AZ  Phoenix-Mesa 3,850(1) 3,849(1)     3,853(1)       AZ  Rillito (Pima County)         1(1)       AZ  West Central Pinal     52(1)   283(1)       AZ  Yuma         101(1)       CA  Amador and Calaveras Cos (Central Mountain Cos) 46(1) 84(1)             CA  Chico 220(1) 220(1) 218(1)           CA  Imperial County 175(1) 175(1) 154(1)   147(1)       CA  Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 15,723(3) 15,719(1) 15,716(1) 15,716(1)     9,437(1)   CA  Mariposa and Tuolumne Cos (Southern Mountain Cos) 18(1) 74(1)             CA  Mono County         7(2)       CA  Nevada Co. (Western Part) 82(1) 82(1)             CA  Owens Valley         7(1)       CA  Sacramento Metro 2,241(1) 2,244(1) 2,206(1)   1,419(1)       CA  San Diego 3,095(1)               CA  San Francisco-Bay Area 6,973(1) 6,971(1) 6,971(1)           CA  San Joaquin Valley 3,938(2) 3,938(2) 3,842(1) 3,842(1) 126(1)       CA  San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles 2(1)               CA  Searles Valley         4(1)       CA  Southeast Desert Modified AQMA 1,294(2) 1,294(2)     495(2)       CA  Tuscan Bluffs 0(1)               CA  Ventura County 823(1) 823(1)             CA  Yuba City   0(1) 165(1)           CO  Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland Area 3,330(1) 3,330(1)             CT  Greater Connecticut 1,629(1) 1,629(1)             DC-MD-VA  Washington 5,136(1) 5,136(1)   5,047(1)         FL  Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater             4(1)   GA  Atlanta 4,753(1) 5,260(1)   5,265(1)         GA  Macon       158(1)         GA  Rome       96(1)         GU  Piti Power Plant           1(1)     GU  Tanguisson Power Plant           1(1)     IA  Council Bluffs             13(1)   ID  Pocatello         1(1)       ID  Shoshone County         11(2)       IL-IN-WI  Chicago-Gary-Lake County 9,180(1)     9,050(1)     36(1)   IN  Muncie             1(1)   KS  Salina             0(1)   KY-IN  Louisville       1,019(1)         LA  Baton Rouge 733(1)               MA  Springfield (W. Mass)   824(1)             MA-NH  Boston-Worcester-Manchester 17(1) 5,723(1)             MD  Baltimore 2,663(1) 2,663(1)   2,663(1)         MD-WV  Hagerstown-Martinsburg       252(1)         MI  Belding             2(1)   MI  Detroit-Ann Arbor     4,705(1) 4,705(1)         MN  Minneapolis-St. Paul             9(1)   MO  Iron             0(1)   MO-IL  St. Louis 2,571(1) 2,594(1)   2,573(1)     44(2) 3(1) MT  Billings/Laurel           7(1)     MT  Butte         34(1)       MT  Columbia Falls (Flathead County)         5(1)       MT  East Helena           3(1)   3(1) MT  Kalispell (Flathead County)         18(1)       MT  Lame Deer         1(1)       MT  Libby       9(1) 3(1)       MT  Missoula         60(1)       MT  Polson (Lake County)         4(1)       MT  Ronan (Lake County)         3(1)       MT  Thompson Falls         1(1)       MT  Whitefish (Flathead County)         6(1)       NC-SC  Charlotte-Gastonia 1,901(1) 1,969(1)             NM  Anthony         3(1)       NV  Las Vegas         1,951(1)       NV  Reno         421(1)       NY  Albany-Schenectady-Troy   970(1)             NY  Buffalo-Niagara Falls   1,136(1)             NY  Essex County; Whiteface Mountain   0(1)             NY  Jamestown 135(1) 135(1)             NY  Jefferson County   116(1)             NY  Poughkeepsie   770(1)             NY  Rochester   1,114(1)             NY-NJ-CT  New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island 20,217(1) 20,217(1) 20,404(1) 20,404(1) 1,586(1)       OH  Bellefontaine             6(1)   OH  Canton-Massillon     376(1) 376(1)         OH  Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 2,882(1)   2,687(1) 2,710(1)     8(1)   OH  Columbus 1,755(1)     1,652(1)         OH  Dayton-Springfield       835(1)         OH  Delta             3(1)   OH-KY-IN  Cincinnati-Hamilton 1,989(1)               OH-WV  Steubenville-Weirton     124(1) 124(1)         OR  Klamath Falls     47(1)           OR  Oakridge     4(1)   4(1)       PA  Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle     1,072(1) 637(1)         PA  Johnstown     157(1) 157(1)         PA  Lancaster 519(1)   519(1) 519(1)         PA  Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 2,356(1) 2,356(1) 2,164(2) 2,164(2)   5(1) 18(1)   PA  Reading 411(1)     411(1)     49(2)   PA  York       435(1)         PA-DE-NJ-MD Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 7,634(2) 7,797(1) 5,798(1) 5,798(1)         PA-NJ  Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 712(1)   647(1)     109(1)     PR  Arecibo             32(1)   RI  Providence (all of RI)   1,053(1)             TN  Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol             2(1)   TN  Knoxville 573(1)   682(1) 682(1)         TN  Memphis 1,127(1)               TN-GA-AL  Chattanooga       471(1)         TX  Dallas-Fort Worth 6,280(1) 6,221(1)         4(1)   TX  El Paso         649(1)       TX  Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 5,892(1) 5,892(1)             UT  Ogden         83(1)       UT  Provo     518(1)   517(1)       UT  Salt Lake City     1,665(1)   1,030(1) 1,030(1)     UT  Tooele County           58(1)     UT-ID  Logan     125(1)           WA  Seattle-Tacoma     540(1)           WI  Milwaukee-Racine     1,533(1)           WI  Sheboygan 116(1) 116(1)             WV  Charleston     249(1) 249(1)         WV-OH  Parkersburg-Marietta       150(1)         WV-OH  Wheeling       148(1)         WY  Sheridan         17(1)       WY  Upper Green River Basin 11(1)                 2010 Population (area count) by Pollutant Total Estimated 2010 Population in Nonattainment

Across All Criteria Pollutants: 154,683

8-Hr Ozone (2008)

8-Hr Ozone (1997)

PM-2.5 (2006)

PM-2.5 (1997)

PM-10

SO2

Lead (2008)

Lead

123,004 ( 46)

112,494 ( 38)

73,458 ( 31)

88,318 ( 32)

12,934 ( 41)

1,217 ( 9)

9,669 ( 21)

5 ( 2)

The Summary Population Exposure Report is a summary of the population living in an area that is in nonattainment for at least one of the NAAQS.  Area Name:  The "State(s) Area Name" column contains a common or general name for the nonattainment areas on the row, but may not reflect the exact name of any area on the row. This column cannot be exact since the nonattainment area for one pollutant may not contain the same counties, cities, or states as the nonattainment area for another pollutant on the same row. The abbreviations listed in the "State(s)" column reflect all states identified in row. However, some states on a row may be nonattainment for some pollutants and not for others in the general area. A multi-state area with states that have not all been redesignated to maintenance is counted as a nonattainment area until all of the states in the area are redesignated, with the whole area population displayed.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9763-9765]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02951]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68831; File No. SR-EDGX-2013-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

February 5, 2013.
    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 January 30, 2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule
15.1(a) and (c). All of the changes described herein are applicable to
EDGX Members and non-Members. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at
the Exchange's principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In SR-EDGX-2010-06,\4\ the Exchange proposed to adopt an annual fee
per physical port utilized by Members and non-Members to connect to the
Exchange's System \5\ for order entry and the receipt of Exchange data,
among other reasons. A physical port is a port used by a Member or non-
Member to connect into the Exchange at the data centers where Exchange
servers are located. Physical port connections can occur either through
an external telecommunication circuit or a cross-connection. The
Exchange noted at the time of filing that other market centers provided
similar services.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62437 (July 1,
2010), 75 FR 39599 (July 9, 2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-06).
    \5\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62437 (July 1,
2010), 75 FR 39599, 39600 (July 9, 2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-06) (citing
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61545 (February 19, 2010), 75 FR
8769 (February 25, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-032) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 62392 (June 28, 2010), 75 FR 38857 (July 6, 2010)
(SR-NASDAQ-2010-077)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-EDGX-2010-21,\7\ the Exchange amended its fee schedule,
effective January 1, 2011, to allow Members and non-Members the option
of paying monthly fees for physical ports used to enter orders in the
Exchange's System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63520 (December 10,
2010), 75 FR 78794 (December 16, 2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to eliminate the
option for Members and non-Members to pay for physical ports on an
annual basis. The Exchange's current monthly rates that it charges
Members and non-Members for physical ports remains unchanged;
therefore, the Exchange will assess a monthly fee of $500 per physical
port that connects to the Exchange's System via 1 gigabyte Copper
circuits; $750 per physical port that connects to the Exchange's System
via 1 gigabyte Fiber circuits; and $1,000 per physical port that
connects to the Exchange's System via 10 gigabyte Fiber circuits. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to pro-rate for the month of January
2013 only the annual fee paid by Members or non-Members who currently
have annual billing as of January 1, 2013 and then convert those
Members or non-Members to monthly billing starting in February 2013,
subject to the execution of a new contract that the Exchange has
distributed to all Members and non-Members to reflect this change.\8\
Furthermore, Direct Edge represents that its Members and non-Members
who currently have annual contracts for physical ports have either
consented to be converted to a month-to-month contract at the proposed
rates, or elected to terminate their contract because they no longer
require the service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, Members or non-Members who are currently billed
annually will pay $416 per physical port for 1GB copper circuits
($5,000 annual fee/12 months) for the month of January 2013 only and
then shift to a monthly billing arrangement and pay $500 per
physical port from February 2013-December 2013 (monthly billing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on February 1, 2013. Members and Non-Members were notified of
the planned changes on November 8, 2012 and through subsequent direct
communication.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\10\ in particular, as it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as its billing
for port fees is reasonably constrained by competitive alternatives.
For example, the change to monthly billing is reasonable because it is
consistent with the monthly options offered by other exchanges, such as
the BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'').\11\ Furthermore, Members and other persons using the
Exchange facilities also have the ability to obtain access to these
services without the need for an independent physical port connection,
such as through alternative means of financial extranets and service
bureaus that act as a conduit for orders entered by Members and non-
Members. Members and non-Members also have the ability to choose lower
cost connection service types and still obtain access to all EDGX
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ The Exchange notes that BATS and NASDAQ only allow for
payment of physical port fees on a monthly basis. See BATS Exchange,
Inc., BATS BZX and BYX Exchange Fee Schedules, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf; NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Price List--Trading &
Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=pricelisttrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the fees associated with physical ports will continue
to be

equitably allocated and non-discriminatory as they will continue to be
uniform in application to all Members and non-Members. Members and non-
Members will continue to choose whether they want more than one
physical port and choose the method of connectivity based on their
specific needs.
    The proposed rule change is also an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because, for Members and non-
Members, the payment of physical connectivity fees on a monthly basis
provides administrative benefits over payments made on an annual basis.
For example, payment on a monthly basis allows Members and non-Members
to opt-in or opt-out of physical connectivity on thirty (30) days'
notice. Members and non-Members that choose to cancel their physical
connectivity within the thirty (30) days' notice will have no recurring
obligation.
    Finally, the proposed rule change is also an equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as the Exchange believes
that the increased fees obtained through the monthly port fees over the
course of a year over annual port fees (an increase of $1,000 per year
per port on all 1Gb copper circuits, $1,500 per year per port on all
1Gb Fiber circuits, and $2,000 per year per port on all 10 Gb Fiber
circuits) will enable it to cover its increased infrastructure costs
associated with allowing Members and non-Members to establish physical
ports to connect to the Exchange's systems and continue to maintain and
improve its infrastructure, market technology, and services. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rates are equitable and non-
discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all Members and non-
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and monthly billing option
remain competitive with those charged by other exchanges and therefore
continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to Members and non-
Members.

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. Proposing to eliminate payment for physical connectivity on an
annual basis does not introduce a burden on competition as exchanges
such as BATS and NASDAQ currently only allow payment for physical
connectivity on a monthly basis.\12\ In addition, the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as payment
on a monthly basis is available to all Members and non-Members. In
addition, Members and non-Members also have the ability to obtain
access to these services without the need for an independent physical
port connection, such as through alternative means of financial
extranets and service bureaus that act as a conduit for orders entered
by Members and non-Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fees for market access will be a component of the overall fees
charged by the Exchange to execute and route orders through the
Exchange. As the Commission has recognized, the market for execution
and routing services is extremely competitive.\13\ Market participants
that choose not to connect directly to the Exchange can readily access
liquidity available on the Exchange by directing their order flow to
other venues that, under Regulation NMS, must route to the Exchange if
it has posted the best price. Accordingly, the Exchange must set its
fees and billing options, including access service fees, at a level and
in such a way that will not deter market participants from connecting
to the Exchange; otherwise, potential users of the Exchange's services
will simply direct order flow to the Exchange's multiple competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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 \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \15\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2)[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Number SR-EDGX-2013-03 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-EDGX-2013-03. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-03 and should be
submitted on or before March 4, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02951 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1447]
[DOCID:fr11ja10-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program Update and Request for
Review for Modesto City-County Airport, Modesto, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice, correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a notice
in the Federal Register on December 18, 2009. (74 FR 67305). This
action corrects an error in a date in that document. The notice
announced that the FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility
program update that was submitted for Modesto City-County Airport under
the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (the Aviation Safety and
Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR Part 150 by City of Modesto.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille Garibaldi, Telephone number:
(650) 876-2778, extension 613.

Correction

    In Notice document (Federal Register Doc. E9-30186) published on
December 18, 2009 (74 FR 67305) make the following correction:
    On page 67305 in the second column, in the fourth line of the third
paragraph under the heading SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; the date
December 6, 2009, is corrected to read, December 9, 2009.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California on December 29, 2009.
Mark A. McClardy,
Manager, Airports Division, AWP-600, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-114 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29176-29178]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0145; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01212-R;
Amendment 39-21558; AD 2021-10-25]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. This
AD was prompted by a report of cracks and geometrical non-conformities
of the tail rotor blades (TRBs); all cracks initiated in the drain hole
area at the blade root section. This AD requires cleaning affected
parts, visual and dye penetrant inspections for cracks of affected
parts, a dimensional inspection to verify conformity of affected parts,
and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 6, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 6,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0145.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0145; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer,
Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC
20024; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0187, dated August 21, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0187) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus
Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on March 15, 2021 (86

FR 14290). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracks and geometrical
non-conformities of the TRBs; all cracks initiated in the drain hole
area at the blade root section. The NPRM proposed to require cleaning
affected parts, visual and dye penetrant inspections for cracks of
affected parts, a dimensional inspection to verify conformity of
affected parts, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in an
EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address geometrical non-conformities
of the TRBs, which could lead to crack initiation and consequent blade
failure, and possible loss of control of the helicopter. See the MCAI
for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0187 specifies procedures for cleaning affected parts,
visual and dye penetrant inspections for cracks of affected parts (the
cleaning and visual and dye penetrant inspections are one-time or
repetitive, depending on the accumulated hours time in service on the
TRB), a one-time dimensional inspection to verify conformity of
affected parts, and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions
include replacement of the affected part with a serviceable part, and
additional repetitive cleaning and inspections until replacement of the
affected part with a serviceable part. This material is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 264 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 work-hours x $85 per hour = $595...........................              $0             $595         $157,080
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340....          $4,641           $4,981
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2021-10-25 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21558; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0145; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01212-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 6, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and
EC130T2 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail rotor
blade (TRB), obtained by forging, part number 350A33-3002-02,
350A33-3002-03, 350A33-3002-04, or 350A33-3002-05 installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6410, Tail rotor
blades.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks and geometrical non-
conformities of the TRBs; all cracks initiated in the drain hole
area at the blade root section. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address geometrical non-conformities of the TRBs, which could lead
to crack initiation and consequent blade failure, and possible loss
of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0187, dated August 21, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0187).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0187

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0187 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0187 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0187 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD does not include
that requirement.
    (4) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0187 specifies to return certain parts, this AD does not include
that requirement.
    (5) Where EASA AD 2020-0187 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0187 specifies to ``contact customer support,'' this AD does not
include that requirement.
    (7) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0187 specifies to measure using the Smartphone application, the
PowerPoint method, or ``Contacting customer support with a specific
procedure,'' those methods of measurement are not required by this
AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0187
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the
helicopter can be modified (if the operator elects to do so),
provided that the helicopter is operated under visual flight rules.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen,
Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0187,
dated August 21, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0187, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0145.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 7, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-11393 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P