[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 5709-5710]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-86]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0028; FRL-8112-4]

Quinoclamine; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption,
Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the Oregon
Department of Agriculture to use the pesticide quinoclamine (CAS No.
2797-51-5) to treat up to 600 acres of ornamental plants grown in
containers in commercial greenhouses to control liverwort. The
Applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been
registered by the EPA. EPA is soliciting public comment before making
the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0028, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0028. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., 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 in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Andrea Conrath, Registration Division
7505P, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether

you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the
Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any
provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency
conditions exist which require the exemption. The Oregon Department of
Agriculture has requested the Administrator to issue a specific
exemption for the use of quinoclamine on greenhouse ornamentals to
control liverwort. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was
submitted as part of this request.
    As part of this request, the Applicant asserts that liverwort
infestations are becoming more severe in Oregon, resulting in crop
losses and difficulty for many operations to grow their crop
successfully. Entire crops can be rejected due to suspicion that
liverwort spores are infesting the crop. There are currently no
chemical controls registered for this use, and the Applicant asserts
that quinoclamine can reliably remove liverwort and its propagules from
a containerized plant. Economic losses can occur due to the following:
    1. The excessive costs for hand weeding,
    2. Failure of plants to grow or thrive, and
    3. Losses from reduced quality or outright rejection of crops sold
from one nursery to another. The Applicant states that significant
economic losses will be suffered without the requested use.
    The Applicant proposes to make no more than 4 applications of
quinoclamine, on up to 600 acres of greenhouse area in the state of
Oregon. The use would potentially occur year-round, and a total of up
to 65,400 lbs. of formulated product (16,350 lb. active ingredient)
could be used under this exemption, if authorized.
    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the
application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA
require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a
specific exemption proposing use of a new chemical (i.e., an active
ingredient) which has not been registered by the EPA. The notice
provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.
    The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during
the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific
exemption requested by the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: January 24, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-1733 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75799]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-499-000; Docket No. CP13-502-000]

Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC; Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P.; Notice Establishing Comment Due Date

    On November 13, 2014, Stop the Pipeline (STP) filed a motion
(motion) requesting that the Commission compel the Constitution
Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution) to provide STP with the precedent
agreements entered into by and between Constitution and specific
shippers for firm transportation service on certain proposed projects.
Constitution filed the precedent agreements and requested privileged
treatment for these documents pursuant to section 388.112(b) of the
Commission's regulations. On November 24, 2014, STP withdrew its
motion, stating that it received a copy of the precedent agreements
from Constitution on November 21, 2014.
    Notice is hereby given that STP may file additional comments in
response to Constitution's filed precedent agreements until and
including January 2, 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 2, 2014, the Commission issued an order in these
proceedings authorizing the proposed projects, subject to
conditions. 149 FERC ] 61,199 (2014). Requests for rehearing are due
January 2, 2015. See 18 CFR 385.713 and 385.2007(a)(2) (2014).

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29703 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Technical Appendices

For

Redesignation Request,

Maintenance Plan

and 2002 Base Year Inventory

Pittsburgh - Beaver Valley Pennsylvania

 Ozone Nonattainment Area

April  2007

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Air Quality

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A:  	Stationary Point Sources

A-1  	Methodology – Preparation of Pennsylvania Point Source Inventories and Instructions for Completing the Annual Emissions Reporting Forms

A-2  	Facility Annual Emissions by SCC

A-3	Facility Daily Emissions by SCC

Appendix B:  	Stationary Area Sources

B-1    	Pennsylvania 2002 Area Source Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimation Methods (EH Pechan, Feb. 2004)

B-2	Area Source Annual Emissions by SCC

B-3	Area Source Daily Emissions by SCC

	Appendix C:  	Highway Vehicles  (includes Executive Summary)

C-1   	Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory – An Explanation of Methodology

C-2	Pittsburgh Area Highway Emissions Estimates

2002 Annual and Daily CO, NOx, VOC & VMT by SCC; Daily NOx, VOC and VMT by Facility and Vehicle Type.

2004, 2009, 2018 Daily VOC, NOx and VMT by Facility Type, Vehicle Type and SCC; Daily CO by SCC

C-3   	MOBILE6.2 Input Parameter Summary

C-4	MOBILE6.2 Sample Input File

C-5	Traffic Growth Forecasting System Report

	Appendix D:  	Nonroad Sources

D-1	Emissions Estimation Methodology

D-2	Nonroad Source Emissions by Category and SCC

	Appendix E:	Source Emissions Projection Methodology

Appendix F:	Pennsylvania Projected EGU Emissions

Appendix G:	Supplemental Air Quality Information


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75147-75149]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-37-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference

    As announced in a Notice issued on October 31, 2014, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a technical
conference on Wednesday, January 7, 2015. The technical conference will
explore whether: 1) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM) Financial
Transmission Rights (FTR) forfeiture rule as it applies to Up-to
Congestion (UTC) transactions and virtual (INC/DEC) transactions is
just and reasonable; and 2) PJM's current uplift allocation associated
with UTC transactions and INCs/DECs is just and reasonable. The
technical conference will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30
p.m. and be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This technical conference is free of
charge and open to the public. Commission members may participate in
the technical conference.
    The agenda and a list of participants for this technical conference
are attached.
    Those who plan to attend the technical conference are encouraged to
complete the registration form located at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/01-07-15-form.asp. There is no registration deadline.
    The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the
technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646). Additionally, there
will be a free

Webcast of the technical conference. The webcast will allow persons to
listen to the technical conference but not participate. Anyone with
Internet access who wants to listen to the technical conference can do
so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov, locating
the technical conference in the Calendar, and clicking on the webcast
link. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the Webcast
and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for
a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    While this technical conference is not for the purpose of
discussing specific cases, the technical conference may address matters
at issue in the following, related Commission proceeding that is
pending: ER13-1654-001.
    Commission technical conferences are accessible under section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations,
please send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866)
208-3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-
2106 with the requested accommodations.
    For more information about the technical conference, please
contact:
    Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External
Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Carmen Gastilo Machuga (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    William Sauer (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Cathleen Colbert (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17DE14.014

Docket No. EL14-37-000

January 7, 2015

Agenda

    The technical conference will explore whether: (1) PJM's FTR
forfeiture rule as it applies to UTC transactions and INCs/DECs is just
and reasonable; and (2) PJM's current uplift allocation associated with
UTC transactions and INCs/DECs is just and reasonable. Presentations
will be allowed at the beginning of each Panel. Any presentations
should be narrowly confined to the topics discussed in this agenda and
should be no longer than five minutes. Presentations should primarily
focus on factual background. Presentations and discussions should be
confined to proposals for addressing these issues within PJM.

9:00am-9:15am Welcome and Opening Remarks

9:15am-12:00pm Panel 1: FTR Forfeiture Rule Goals and Designs (with a
15 minute break)

    Panel 1 will explore PJM's FTR forfeiture rule as it applies to
INCs/DECs and UTC transactions. In the context of applying the rule to
these products, the Panel will discuss: (1) the goals of the FTR
forfeiture rule; and (2) different ways of structuring the FTR
forfeiture rule's design.
    During the discussion on goals, Panelists should be prepared to
address the following:
     The FTR forfeiture rule was intended to address potential
market abuse.\1\ The market abuse in question was trading to create
artificial congestion in the day-ahead market that influenced the value
of FTRs, conduct which may be a violation of the Anti-Manipulation Rule
after its implementation in 2006. INCs/DECs and UTC transactions may
provide value to the system by improving price convergence. Given these
two priorities, is it possible to design an effective rule that
addresses market abuse yet does not discourage legitimate virtual
trading that can contribute to price convergence?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ December 22, 2000 filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
Docket No. ER01-773-000 at 2 (``The purpose of the modifications is
to address concerns . . . that an entity can purchase FTRs in the
monthly FTR auction and then enter Increment and Decrement Bids in
the Day-ahead Market so as to create congestion and artificially
(continued . . .) increase the value of its FTRs.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Examples of how INCs/DECs and UTC transactions influence
the value of FTRs
     Behaviors to be discouraged or encouraged through the FTR
forfeiture rule

During the discussion on different ways of structuring the FTR
forfeiture rule design, Panelists should be prepared to address the
structural components of an effective rule, including:
     In which way, if at all, should transactions be aggregated
to determine the effect on congestion? In determining the effect on
congestion, should the FTR forfeiture rule consider each market
participant's portfolio of transactions? If so, is this approach
technically feasible?
     In which way, if at all, should the FTR forfeiture rule
assess INCs/DECs and UTC transactions that are intended to relieve
congestion to benefit the value of counter-flow FTRs?
     At what threshold should the flow impact on a transmission
constraint's limit trigger the forfeiture? What are the possible
implications of implementing an overly strict rule versus a rule that
may fail to identify all instances of potentially manipulative
behavior?
     How, if at all, should the rule treat INCs/DECs and UTC
transactions

differently under various rule designs? For instance, should different
injection/withdrawal points be utilized? Should different forfeiture
thresholds be used?

Panelists:

     Andrew Hartshorn, Boston Energy Trading and Marketing
     Noha Sidhom, Inertia Power, LP
     Harry Singh, J. Aron & Company
     Joseph Bowring, Monitoring Analytics
     Stu Bresler, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

12:00pm-1:00pm Lunch

1:00pm-4:15pm Panel 2: Uplift Causation and Allocation (with a 15
minute break)

    Panel 2 will explore the circumstances under which INCs/DECs and
UTC transactions may cause uplift in PJM and, if so, how INCs/DECs and
UTC transactions should be allocated uplift charges. In the context of
assessing PJM's uplift allocation, the Panel will discuss: (1) the
extent to which uplift may be caused by INCs/DECs and UTC transactions;
and (2) different ways to potentially allocate uplift to INCs/DECs and
UTC transactions.
    During the discussion on uplift causation, Panelists should be
prepared to address the following:
     How, if at all, do INCs/DECs and UTC transactions cause
uplift?
     In which way, if at all, is uplift caused by INCs/DECs and
UTC transactions associated with congestion, divergences between day-
ahead and real-time physical energy requirements, or other positions
held by each market participant?
     Are there methods available to accurately and dynamically
determine any uplift that may be caused by INCs/DECs and UTC
transactions?

During the discussion on uplift allocation, Panelists should be
prepared to address the following:
     The status of PJM's Energy Market Uplift Senior Task
Force.
     What principle(s) should be followed if and when
allocating uplift to INCs/DECs and UTC transactions? For instance, one
potential solution is that uplift costs should be strictly allocated
based on cost causation determinations. Other potential solutions may
be guided by simplicity, predictability, or multiple objectives. What
new, if any, uplift allocation rules should be implemented based on
this principle(s)?
     Under which, if any, circumstances should INCs/DECs and
UTC transactions be offset by other transactions to limit uplift
allocation exposure?

Panelists:
     Abram Klein, Appian Way Energy Partners
     William Hogan, Harvard University, speaking on behalf of
Financial Marketers Coalition
     Joseph Bowring, Monitoring Analytics
     Adam Keech, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
     David Patton, Potomac Economics, Ltd.
     Wesley Allen, Red Wolf Energy Trading, L.L.C.
     Stephanie Staska, Twin Cities Power Holdings, L.L.C.
     Michael McNair, Yes Energy

4:15pm-4:30pm Closing

[FR Doc. 2014-29543 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29002-29003]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0375]

Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San
Diego Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Coronado
Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks on the waters of Glorietta Bay,
CA on Tuesday, July 4, 2017. The safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of the participants, spectators, official

vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation
for the Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego
Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event.
During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block,
loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the
regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 8 p.m.
through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017, for Item 3 in Table 1 of Section
165.1123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-
7656, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations
in 33 CFR 165.1123 for a safety zone on the waters of Glorietta Bay, CA
for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks in 33 CFR
165.1123, Table 1, Item 3 of that section, from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m.
on July 4, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event.
Our regulation for Southern California Annual Firework Events for the
San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for
the this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may
not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator
vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not
anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or
official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative
determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full
duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor
to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 10, 2017.
E.M. Cooper,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2017-13431 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 162)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49134-49136]
[DOCID:fr20au08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0747]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterway
EPA Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to create a permanent regulated
navigation area on a portion of the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood
Waterways, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington. This regulated
navigation area would be used to preserve the integrity of a clean
sediment cap placed over certain areas of the Thea Foss and Wheeler-
Osgood Waterways as part of the remediation process of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Commencement Bay Nearshore/
Tideflats superfund cleanup site. This regulated navigation area would
prohibit activities that would disturb the seabed, such as anchoring,
dragging, trawling, spudding, or other activities that involve
disrupting the integrity of the cap. It would not affect transit or
navigation of the area.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0747 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call ENS Heidi Bevis, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Seattle, Waterways
Management Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0747), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing.
    If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0747)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays; or the Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134, between 8 a.m. and
3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways are part of the
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund Cleanup Site. The Thea
Foss Waterway is the southernmost of the waterways in Commencement Bay,
and the Wheeler-Osgood Waterway is a smaller waterway connected to the
eastern shoreline of the Thea Foss Waterway at approximately its
midpoint. The Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways cleanup
encompassed the inner approximately three-fourths of the waterway, with
active remediation performed primarily south of the 11th Street Bridge.
This site is bounded by numerous publicly and privately owned
properties. The City of Tacoma is leading the cleanup and monitoring
effort in approximately 80% of the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood
Waterways in conjunction with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. A group of private utilities performed the cleanup
in the remainder of the waterway.
    Remediation activities performed in the Thea Foss and Wheeler-
Osgood Waterways included a combination of dredging, placement of
enhanced natural recovery material (i.e., approximately 6 inches of
clean sand), placement of a thick-layer cap, and natural recovery.
These thick-layer caps consist of approximately three feet of sand and
gravel and/or riprap and were

placed in various locations within the waterway to contain contaminated
sediments. These caps were designed to withstand activities common to a
working waterfront. The thick-layer caps cover approximately 30 acres
of sediment in the waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This will be a permanent regulation restricting activities such as
anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding, or other activities that
involve disrupting the integrity of the caps. Activities common in the
proposed regulated areas include recreational boating, tugboat
movement, and shipyard activities. The thick-layer cap areas were
designed to be compatible with the activities described above that are
associated with a working waterfront. The material used for the caps
was chosen to be able to contain underlying sediments without altering
the main activities of the working waterway.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The proposed rule is not
``a significant regulatory action'' because the regulated areas
established by the rule would encompass a small area that should not
impact commercial or recreational traffic and prohibited activities are
not routine for the designated areas.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 U.S. Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the
following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to anchor, dredge, spud, lay cable or
disturb the seabed in any fashion when this rule is in effect. The zone
would not have a significant economic impact due to its small area.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact ENS Hiedi Bevis, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Seattle, Waterways Management Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The U.S. Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
U.S. Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide the U.S. Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that there
are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical
exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe
that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. As a proposal to establish a regulated navigation area,
this rule meets the criteria outlined in paragraph (34)(g).
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental
review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.1324 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1324  Regulated Navigation Area; Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood
Waterway EPA Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are regulated navigation
areas:
    (1) All waters of the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways
bounded by a line connecting the following points: Point 1:
47[deg]15'43.0513'' N, 122[deg]26'22.9718'' W; Point 2:
47[deg]15'43.0920'' N, 122[deg]26'20.5400'' W; Point 3:
47[deg]15'42.1625'' N, 122[deg]26'19.0741'' W; Point 4:
47[deg]15'40.9149'' N, 122[deg]26'18.2348'' W; Point 5:
47[deg]15'40.5821'' N, 122[deg]26'19.3051'' W; Point 6:
47[deg]15'38.9184'' N, 122[deg]26'18.1889'' W; Point 7:
47[deg]15'38.4275'' N, 122[deg]26'19.7759'' W. [Datum: NAD 1983].
    (2) All waters of the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways
bounded by a line connecting the following points: Point 1:
47[deg]15'22.1992'' N, 122[deg]25'57.2126'' W; Point 2:
47[deg]15'22.1465'' N, 122[deg]25'58.5186'' W; Point 3:
47[deg]15'20.8927'' N, 122[deg]25'59.1811'' W; Point 4:
47[deg]15'19.7138'' N, 122[deg]25'59.0136'' W; Point 5:
47[deg]15'18.6957'' N, 122[deg]25'57.4348'' W; Point 6:
47[deg]15'18.9079'' N, 122[deg]25'56.5456'' W. [Datum: NAD 1983].
    (3) All waters of the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways south
of a line bounded by connecting the following points: Point 1:
47[deg]15'13.9421'' N, 122[deg]26'05.5628'' W; Point 2:
47[deg]15'15.0083'' N, 122[deg]25'55.1405'' W. [Datum: NAD 1983].
    (b) Regulations. All vessels and persons are prohibited from
activities that would disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging,
trawling, spudding, or other activities that involve disrupting the
integrity of the cap in the designated regulated navigation area.
Vessels may otherwise transit or navigate within this area without
reservation.
    (c) Waiver. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Puget Sound, upon advice
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Project Manager
and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, may, upon
written request, authorize a waiver from this section if the COTP Puget
Sound determines that the proposed operation supports USEPA remedial
objectives, or can be performed in a manner that ensures the integrity
of the sediment cap. A written request must describe the intended
operation, state the need, and describe the proposed precautionary
measures. Requests should be submitted in triplicate to Commander
(dpw), 13th Coast Guard District, 915 2nd Avenue, Room 3510, Seattle,
WA 98174-1067 to facilitate review by USEPA, U.S. Coast Guard, and the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. USEPA managed
remedial design, remedial action, habitat mitigation, or monitoring
activities associated with the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterway
Superfund Site are excluded from the waiver requirement. USEPA is
required, however, to alert the U.S. Coast Guard in advance concerning
any of the above-mentioned activities that may, or will, take place in
the Regulated Area.

    Dated: July 28, 2008.
John P. Currier,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
 [FR Doc. E8-19211 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 4235]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01775]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3392-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3392-EM), dated October 6, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: The change occurred on January 3, 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: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Long,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of William J. Doran III as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    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. 2018-01775 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3503-3506]
[DOCID:fr21ja10-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61342; File No. SR-BX-2009-088]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Facility

January 13, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 31, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston
Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX''). The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, on the Exchange's Internet Web site
at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/, and on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The BOX Fee Schedule currently lists certain execution fees as
``standard'' trading fees, meaning that these execution fees are not
dependent upon whether the transaction added or removed liquidity on
BOX.\5\ These standard fees, specifically within Sections 2 and 3 of
the BOX Fee Schedule, are applicable for Broker Dealer proprietary
accounts and Market Maker accounts, respectively, and are currently set
at $0.20 per contract executed.\6\ The Exchange proposes to make the
following adjustments to standard trading fees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 7 of the BOX Fee Schedule which sets forth any
applicable ``liquidity fees and credits.''
    \6\ According to Section 1 of the BOX Fee Schedule a Public
Customer is charged $0.15 per executed contract of an Improvement
Order on its behalf in the PIP where that order is not submitted as
a Customer PIP Order (``CPO'') whereby it is labeled as a ``non-
CPO.'' There are no other trading fees for any other Public Customer
Orders which may be executed on BOX, including CPOs and Public
Customer orders on the Book, except for the charges and credits
described in Section 7 of the BOX Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broker Dealer Trading Fees
    Section 2 of the BOX Fee Schedule describes the current standard
transaction fee applicable to Broker Dealer transactions which is
currently set at $0.20. The Exchange proposes that the standard fee for
Broker Dealer transactions in all options classes, excluding
transactions in Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts[reg] (``SPY''),
Powershares[reg] QQQ Trust Series 1 (``QQQQ'') and iShares Russell
2000[reg] Index Fund (``IWM'') and transactions in the Price
Improvement Period (``PIP''), be set at $0.25 per contract.
Market Maker Trading Fees:
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 3 of the BOX Fee Schedule
relating to transaction fees applicable to BOX Market Makers.\7\
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a per contract transaction
fee that is based on the number of contracts a BOX Market Maker
executes in a month, excluding transactions in SPY, QQQQ and IWM and
transactions within the PIP, as follows: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The fees proposed herein for Market Makers vary from the
fees proposed for Broker Dealers as the obligations for the two are
different. For example, Market Makers must maintain active two-sided
markets in options classes to which they are assigned and also have
certain restrictions regarding trading activity in classes outside
of their assignment, both of which do not apply to Broker Dealers on
BOX.
    \8\ The current standard Market Maker fee is $0.20 per contact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Per
         Average daily volume (ADV) for Market Maker           contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADV of 150,001 contracts and greater........................       $0.13
ADV of 100,001 contracts to 150,000 contracts...............        0.16
ADV of 50,001 contracts to 100,000 contracts................        0.18
ADV of 10,001 contracts to 50,000 contracts.................        0.20
ADV of 0 contracts to 10,000 contracts......................        0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed tiered fee schedule is designed to incent BOX Market
Makers to increase their quoting and trading activity on BOX. As a
Market Maker's monthly trading volume increases the per-contract fee
that a Market Maker is charged for such executions is decreased. The
Exchange proposes that the new tiered fees apply to all BOX Market
Makers for transactions in all classes traded on BOX (excluding
executions which occur in the PIP auction and executions in SPY, QQQQ,
& IWM). The BOX Market Maker's ADV will be calculated at the end of
each trading month. All executions for that month will be charged the
same per-contract fee rate according to the respective ADV achieved by
the Market Maker.
    Section 3(b) of the BOX Fee Schedule currently sets forth a volume
discount that is applicable to the execution fees of BOX Market Makers.
The volume discount currently is $0.03 and $0.05 per contract upon the
Market Maker achieving an ADV of 25,000 and 50,000 contracts per month,
respectively. The tiered fee schedule, as outlined above, will
effectively apply the same goal as the Market Maker volume discount,
which is to incent more quoting activity and trading volume by Market
Makers on BOX. The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate, in its
entirety, the Market Maker volume discount of Section 3(b) of the BOX
Fee Schedule.
Reduction of Fees and Credits in Section 7
    The Exchange proposes to reduce the existing credits and fees
within Section 7 for both Non-Penny Pilot Classes and Penny Pilot
Classes, from $0.75 to $0.55 and from $0.20 to $0.15, respectively and
for transactions in the PIP, from $0.20 to $0.15.\9\ These credits and
fees apply equally to all account types, whether Public Customer, Firm
or Market Maker and are in addition to any applicable trading fees, as
described in Sections 1 through 3 of the BOX Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that prior to this proposal the fees and
credits of Section 7 did not apply to transactions in SPY, QQQQ and
IWM. Similarly, the reduction in fees discussed in this section
(``Reduction of Fees and Credits in Section 7'') do not apply to
transactions in SPY, QQQQ and IWM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a Public Customer Order in a Non-Penny Pilot Class is
entered

into the BOX Trading Host and executes against a Broker Dealer's order
resting on the BOX Book. The Public Customer is the remover of
liquidity and the Broker Dealer is the adder of liquidity. The Public
Customer will receive a $0.55 ``removal'' credit and the Broker Dealer
will be charged a $0.55 ``add'' fee. The Public Customer will receive a
$0.55 total credit (zero charge from Section 1 plus the $0.55
``removal'' credit) and the Broker Dealer will be charged $0.80 total
(the $0.55 fee for adding liquidity in addition to the standard $0.25
transaction fee).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This example presupposes that the proposed increase in
Broker Dealer fees, from $0.20 to $0.25, is in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees and Charges to SPY, QQQQ, and IWM
    The Exchange Traded Fund Shares (``ETFs'') SPY, QQQQ and IWM are
among the most actively traded multiply listed options classes across
all of the options exchanges. The Exchange believes that the
characteristics that these ETFs share among themselves make it
appropriate that pricing for transactions in these classes be set on
par with each other. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the volume
and liquidity exhibited in these classes is such that the pricing
applicable to these classes be set apart from the pricing applicable to
all other options classes listed and traded on BOX.
    Therefore, the Exchange proposes that the standard fee for
transactions in SPY, QQQQ and IWM be set at $0.10 per contract for
Broker Dealers and at $0.05 per contract for BOX Market Makers.\11\ The
proposed different rate as between Broker Dealers and BOX Market Makers
is based upon the obligations that Market Makers undertake on BOX, such
as posting continuous two-sided quotes, which Broker Dealers are not
subject to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Currently the standard fees charged for transactions in
SPY, QQQQ and IWM are $0.20 for both Market Maker and Broker Dealer
transactions. As is currently the case, most executions on BOX on
behalf of Public Customers will be free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The credits and fees of Section 7 of the BOX Fee Schedule currently
do not apply to executions in the classes SPY, QQQQ or IWM. The
Exchange proposes to apply Section 7's credits and fees to transactions
in these three classes as is currently applied to transactions in all
other classes on BOX. The Exchange proposes that the fees and credits
apply equally for these three classes at $0.05 for both the fees and
credits.
Transactions in the PIP
    The BOX PIP is a mechanism by which BOX Participants can obtain
executions and price improvement of their customers' orders. Because
executions in the PIP are separate and distinct from non-PIP executions
the Exchange believes that pricing for executions that take place
within the PIP also be separate and distinct from non-PIP execution
rates.\12\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes that the standard fee for
transactions within the PIP, including transactions in SPY, QQQQ and
IWM, be set at $0.20 per contract, both for Broker Dealers and for BOX
Market Makers.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ BOX Options Participants are able to compete within the PIP
auction for a portion of the order on the opposite side of the
Public Customer PIP Order that must be filled by submitting
Improvement Orders.
    \13\ Transactions within the PIP are presently subject to a
$0.20 fee. This proposal merely breaks fees for PIP transactions
into their own distinct line item in the Fee Schedule. See Ex. 5.
Transactions within the PIP will also be subject to the fees and
credits of Section 7 of the BOX Fee Schedule, as proposed and
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Substantive Changes
    The Exchange is also proposing various non-substantive changes to
the BOX Fee Schedule. These changes are necessary for reasons such as
the elimination of certain Fee Schedule text (e.g. the proposed
elimination of the Market Maker Volume Discount of Section 3(b)) or the
renumbering of certain sections of the Fee Schedule (e.g. Section 2(b)
renumbered to Section 2(c)). Further non-substantive changes have been
proposed either to add greater clarity or remove language from the Fee
Schedule which is now considered confusing in light of the substantive
changes that are being proposed herein.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, as well as Section 6(b) of the
Act,\16\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in particular
in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. In particular, the proposed change will allow the
fees charged on BOX to remain competitive with other exchanges as well
as apply such fees in a manner which is equitable based upon the
particular account type, e.g. Market Maker or Broker Dealer, for which
such transactions are executed. The obligations of Market Makers on BOX
and Brokers Dealers that execute transactions on BOX are different. For
example, BOX Market Makers must maintain active two-sided markets in
options classes to which they are assigned and also have certain
restrictions regarding trading activity in classes outside of their
assignment, both of which do not apply to Broker Dealers on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on 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)(ii) of the Exchange Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\
thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments:

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2009-088 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-BX-2009-088. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BX-2009-088 and should be
submitted on or before February 11, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1015 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 41957-41958]
[DOCID:fr19au09-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60495; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Implementing the
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services

August 13, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 3, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. NYSE Arca filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \5\ thereunder. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the section of its Schedule of Fees
and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Schedule''). While changes to
the Schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing,
the changes will become operative on August 3, 2009. The text of the
proposed rule change is attached as Ex.5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy of
this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make multiple changes to its Schedule that
will take effect on August 3, 2009. A more detailed description of the
proposed changes follows.
    Closing Auctions:
    The Exchange proposes to change the fee charged for Market-On-Close
and Limit-On-Close Orders executed in the closing auction from $0.0005
to $0.0007 per share. This change applies universally throughout the
Schedule to

each instance that a fee for Market-On-Close and Limit-On-Close Orders
is explicitly stated. The Exchange also proposes to add to the Schedule
a $0.0007 fee for PO+ Market-On-Close and Limit-On-Close Orders routed
to NYSE Amex. The proposed fees are part of the Exchange's continued
effort to attract and enhance participation in the Closing Auctions by
offering attractive rates.
    IOI Credit:
    The Exchange proposes to add a $0.0015 per share credit for each
IOI that results in an execution in excess of 15 million shares based
on average daily volume (``ADV'') per month. This new $0.0015 per share
credit is an incremental credit that only applies to those shares
executed in excess of 15 million shares ADV. ETP Holders qualifying for
the Tier 1 IOI credit will now receive a $.0012 per share credit for
each share up to and including 15 million, and a $0.0015 per share
credit for each share in excess of 15 million. For example, an ETP
Holder that sends IOI's to the Exchange resulting in execution with an
average daily share volume per month equal to 16 million shares will
receive a $0.0012 credit for the first 15 million shares and a $0.0015
credit for one million shares (15,000,001 to 16,000,000). The proposed
rates are part of the Exchange's continued effort to attract and
enhance participation in the IOI program, by offering attractive
rebates and volume based incentives.
    Odd-Lot Pricing:
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate its odd-lot pricing
structure. Previously the Exchange charged $0.03 per share for odd-lot
orders executed against orders residing in the book in Tape A and Tape
B securities, and $0.0035 per share for Tape C securities. The Exchange
paid a $0.02 per share credit to market makers that executed against an
odd-lot order. The Exchange also had odd-lot pricing associated with
odd-lots routed to different market centers. Under this proposal the
Exchange will eliminate all distinct odd-lot pricing. ETP Holders
executing odd-lots will now be charged and credited in the same way
that round-lots are charged and credited. This change will simplify the
Schedule and treat odd-lots in the same manner as round-lots.
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable and
equitable in that they apply uniformly to all ETP Holders. The proposed
changes will become operative on August 3, 2009.
    The Exchange notes that it is making technical changes to correct
the footnote numbering.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and 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 its
members and other persons using its facilities. The proposed rates are
part of the Exchange's continued effort to attract and enhance
participation on the Exchange, by offering attractive rebates for
liquidity providers and volume-based incentives. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes to the Schedule are equitable in that they
apply uniformly to our Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

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

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule 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 is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \9\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NYSE Arca on its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-72 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-NYSEArca-2009-72. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-NYSEArca-2009-72 and should
be submitted on or before September 9, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19895 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


                                                               Continuous Release Reporting for Farms    SECTION II: ANIMAL WASTE SOURCE INFORMATION ID Number (CR-ERNS)   Part A: Basis for Asserting the Releases is Continuous and Stable in Quantity and Rate

  For EACH animal waste source of a release of a hazardous substance to the air from your farm, provide the   following information. Use a SEPARATE sheet for each animal waste source.   Continuous Release Reporting for Farms    SECTION II: ANIMAL WASTE SOURCE INFORMATION ID Number (CR-ERNS)   Part A: Basis for Asserting the Releases is Continuous and Stable in Quantity and Rate

  For EACH animal waste source of a release of a hazardous substance to the air from your farm, provide the   following information. Use a SEPARATE sheet for each animal waste source.                                OMB No. 2050-0086

Name of Animal Waste Source:

Check One  -  Whether the release from this animal waste source is either:   □  Continuous without interruption		           □  Routine, anticipated, intermittent

Identify the activity(ies) that results in the release from this animal waste source (e.g. manure pile, lagoon, etc.) to the air.

Identify below how you established the pattern of release and calculated release estimates. Check all that apply.

□ Past Release Data	□ Knowledge of the farm operations and release history	     □ Engineering Estimate

□ AP-42 Procedures	□ Best Professional Judgement

Other (explain)

                                 INSTRUCTIONS              SECTION II: ANIMAL WASTE SOURCE INFORMATION (PART A)     ID Number (CR-ERNS)   The CR-ERNS Number is required for this submission. NRC will assign a CR-ERNS number for your farm when you make the initial notification.  General overview - The purpose of requiring information on the animal waste source(s) of the release to the air is to provide EPA with sufficient information to evaluate the risk associated with the continuous release. Providing this information accurately in the written report will minimize future requests for additional information or clarification.  When completing your written reports, you must take into consideration all animal waste sources of the air release of a hazardous substance from your farm. For example, if the aggregate amount of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide released within 24 hours from your farm equals or exceeds the RQ of 100 lbs., then each animal waste source of the particular air release must be identified, even if some release amounts from individual animal waste sources do not equal or exceed the RQ.   In this section of the written report, you should identify and describe separately each continuous release animal waste source. If the continuous release of the same hazardous substance comes from two or more animal waste sources (e.g., two barns), then information should be reported separately for each of the animal waste sources.   For example, if a barn is one of several animal waste sources of a hazardous substance air release at your farm, you must provide information on that barn including: the identity of the hazardous substance(s) being released from the barn; the quantity released to the air; and the frequency of the release from the barn. If you have a release of a particular hazardous substance from three barns, you should report each barn separately and provide the required information specified for each barn.  Although the continuous release reporting regulation allows multiple concurrent releases of the same CERCLA hazardous substance to be considered as if they were one continuous release, aggregate reporting of such releases to the air from different animal waste sources complicates risk analyses. Area sources are most readily aggregated for purposes of continuous release reporting and risk evaluation when the frequency of the release to the air from each animal waste source is the same. Similarly, aggregated barn releases are most readily evaluated if the frequency of the release from each barn is the same. If you elect to aggregate releases across the farm, be certain to identify information about each animal waste source of the release to the air.  Identification of animal waste sources - In Section II, you must identify (i.e., name) and describe each continuous release animal waste source. There are several ways to name animal waste sources. It is important to:    (1) provide a name that clearly identifies the animal waste source; and     (2) avoid giving two or more animal waste sources the same name.  It is also important to remember when naming your animal waste sources that you may be contacted with questions regarding releases from one of your named animal waste sources. It would be prudent, therefore, to name the animal waste sources at your farm in a manner that will be easy for you and other employees to identify them. For example, if your plant has four lagoons, two manure piles, and five barns, you may name the animal waste sources as follows: Lagoon #1; Lagoon #2; Lagoon #3; Lagoon #4; Manure pile #1; Manure pile #2; and Barn #1. Barn #2. Barn #3, Barn #4, and Barn #5.  Required information - Section II, Animal Waste Source Information, contains three Parts (A, B, and C). You must provide the information required in each of these Parts for each continuous release animal waste source. Be sure to place the name of the animal waste source on all pages associated with that specific source.  Part A - Basis for Asserting the Release is Continuous and Stable in Quantity and Rate:  You must first identify the animal waste source of the release (include the name of the animal waste source in all subsequent parts), then briefly describe whether the release is continuous without interruption, or is a routine, anticipated, intermittent release. Briefly describe information on when the release is expected to occur (i.e., evidence of predictability of the release).   EPA considers emissions from animal waste to be continuous and stable in quantity and rate, and therefore eligible for continuous release reporting. The general assumption is that releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms is essentially on-going and therefore continuous.  Your description should also identify the activity that results in the release. If the release occurs because of a malfunction or other unusual event, this should be explained fully.  Finally, your description should include information on how you established the pattern of the release and calculated release estimates (e.g., engineering estimates, your best professional judgment, past release data).  For each animal waste source identified, provide the following information:    (1) Indicate whether the release is continuous without interruption or abatement or routine, anticipated, and intermittent.     (2) Identify the activity or activities that cause the release to the air from the animal waste source.     (3) Identify how you established the pattern of the release and calculated release estimates.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8607-8610]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04332]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0059]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Gulfport Grand Prix, Boca Ciego Bay,
Gulfport, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
the waters of the Boca Ciego Bay in the vicinity of Gulfport, Florida,
during the Gulfport Grand Prix High Speed Boat Race. Approximately 75
boats, 14-30 feet in length, traveling at speeds in excess of 120 miles
per hour are expected to participate. Additionally, it is anticipated
that 100 spectator vessels will be present along the race course. The
special local regulation is necessary to protect the safety of race
participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public
on navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico during the event. The special
local regulation will establish the following regulated areas: A race
area where all non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg (COTP) or a designated representative; and a buffer zone
where designated representatives may control vessel traffic as deemed
necessary by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative
based upon prevailing weather conditions.

DATES: This rule is effective daily from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on March
29, 2019 through March 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0059 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket

Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Michael D.
Shackleford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is establishing this special local regulation
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 an NPRM with
respect to this rule because it is impracticable. Insufficient time
remains to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments, as the event
will occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of
the potential safety hazards associated with the race, the regulation
is necessary to provide for the safety of the race participants,
spectators, and vessels transiting the event area. Additionally, the
Coast Guard is currently drafting a NPRM covering this annual recurring
event; however, the NPRM will not be finalized before the start date of
the event. For those reasons, it would be impracticable to publish an
NRPM.
    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. For the reasons discussed above,
the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of
the rule is to provide for the safety of event participants,
spectators, and the general public on the navigable waters of the Gulf
of Mexico during the Gulfport Grand Prix High Speed Boat Race event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation that will
encompass certain waters of the Boca Ciega Bay in the vicinity of
Gulfport, Florida. The special local regulation will be enforced daily
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on March 29, 2019 through March 31, 2019. The
special local regulation will establish two regulated areas: (1) A race
area where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels
participating in the high speed boat races, are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP St.
Petersburg or a designated representative; and (2) a buffer zone where
vessel traffic may be controlled as determined by the COTP St.
Petersburg or a designated representative based upon prevailing weather
conditions.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting
the Captain of the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg by telephone at (727)
824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the COTP St. Petersburg or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP St.
Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) The special
local regulation will be enforced for only nine hours on three days;
(2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the
COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in
the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and
vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area or anchor in the spectator area, during the
enforcement period if authorized by the COTP St. Petersburg or a
designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime
community by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a
regatta or marine parade enforced for nine hours daily over a period of
three days that will prohibit non-participant persons and vessels from
entering, transiting through, remaining within, or anchoring in the
regulated area. This rule is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T07-0059 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T07-0059  Special Local Regulation; Gulfport Grand Prix, Boca
de Ciego; Gulfport, FL.

    (a) Location. The following regulated areas are established as a
special local regulation. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (1) Race area. All waters of Boca de Ciego contained within the
following points: 27[deg]44'10'' N, 082[deg]42'29'' W, thence to
position 27[deg]44'07'' N, 082[deg]42'40'' W, thence to position
27[deg]44'06'' N, 082[deg]42'40'' W, thence to position 27[deg]44'04''
N, 082[deg]42'29'' W, thence to position 27[deg]44'07'' N,
082[deg]42'19'' W, thence to position 27[deg]44'08'' N, 082[deg]42'19''
W, thence back to the original position, 27[deg]44'10'' N,
082[deg]42'29'' W.
    (2) Buffer zone. All waters of Boca de Ciego encompassed within the
following points: 27[deg]44'10'' N, 082[deg]42'47'' W, thence to
position 27[deg]44'01'' N, 082[deg]42'44'' W, thence to position
27[deg]44'01'' N, 082[deg]42'14'' W, thence to position 27[deg]44'15''
N, 082[deg]42'14'' W.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the COTP
St. Petersburg in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the race area unless an authorized by the Captain of
the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
    (2) Vessel traffic within the buffer zone may be controlled by the
COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative as deemed necessary
by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative based upon
prevailing weather conditions.
    (3) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the race area contact the COTP St. Petersburg by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via VHF-FM radio Channel 16 to request
authorization.
    (4) If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the race area is granted, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization shall comply with the instructions of the
COTP or a designated representative.
    (5) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced daily from 8
a.m. until 5 p.m. on March 29, 2019 through March 31, 2019.

    Dated: March 4, 2019.
H.L. Najarian,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2019-04332 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P