[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 65551-65554]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In September
2010, there were four applications approved. This notice also includes
information on seven applications, one approved in May 2009, two
approved in July 2010, and four approved in August 2010, inadvertently
left off the May 2009, July 2010, and August 2010 notices,
respectively. Additionally, 17 approved amendments to previously
approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston, Massachusetts.
    Application Number: 09-05-U-00-BOS.
    Application Type: Use PFC revenue.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved for Use in This Decision: $9,756,941.
    Charge Effective Date: February 1, 2011.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: No change from
previous decision.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Use: Centerfield taxiway.
    Decision Date: May 15, 2009.
    For Further Information Contact: Priscilla Scott, New England
Region Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: State of Connecticut Department of Transportation,
Bureau of

Aviation and Ports, Windsor Locks, Connecticut.
    Application Number: 10-18-C-00-BDL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $5,243,181.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: July 1, 2021.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: December 1, 2021.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: On-demand air
taxi commercial operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Bradley International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$4.50 PFC Level: Residential sound insulation program. Relocate
airfield lighting vault.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level: New terminal development schematic preliminary
engineering study and design. Replace two 1997 snow blower attachments.
Replace two 1997 snow broom attachments.
    Decision Date: July 26, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Priscilla Scott, New England
Region Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Wichita Airport Authority, Wichita, Kansas.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-ICT.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $166,384,422.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: April 1, 2046.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use: Air
carrier apron. Pavement condition inventory. New terminal building.
Landside utilities and Mid-Continent Drive relocation. Consultant
services. Multi-purpose snow vehicle. Snow removal equipment facility
site improvements.
    Brief Description of Disapproved Project: Financing costs (audit).
    Determination: Disapproved. The public agency did not provide
sufficient information in the justification and PFC objective sections
of the Attachment B for this project.
    Decision Date: July 28, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Jim Johnson, Central Region
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Saint Louis, Missouri.
    Application Number: 10-10-U-00-STL.
    Application Type: Use PFC revenue.
    PFC Level: $3.00.
    Total PEG Revenue Approved for Use in This Decision: $6,488,607.
    Charge Effective Date: June 1, 2019.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2022.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: No change from
previous decision.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Use: Taxiway
reconstruction (F and V).
    Decision Date: August 13, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Nicoletta Oliver, Central Region
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Meridian Airport Authority, Meridian, Mississippi.
    Application Number: 10-11-C-00-MEI.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $240,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2017.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2020.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Improve terminal building. Construct apron. Rehabilitate/construct
hangar access road. Wildlife control equipment, fencing, perimeter
road.
    Decision Date: August 16, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Kevin Morgan, Jackson Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Okaloosa, Valparaiso, Florida.
    Application Number: 10-05-C-00-VPS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $7,816,386.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1, 2021.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2025.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Air carriers
when operating military-related charter flights not enplaning
passengers at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport (VPS) terminal
building but at the Eglin Air Force Base military facilities.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at VPS.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Terminal additions phase 1A. Construct and equip new west side surface
public parking lot. Construct and equip expansion of west side surface
public parking lot and rehabilitate north public parking lot. Install
high mast lighting for cargo apron. PFC program formulation and
administrative costs.
    Brief Description of Projects Partially Approved for Collection and
Use: Construct cargo apron. Terminal additions phase 1B.
    Determination: The amount requested by the public agency, when
combined with the other funding sources for these projects, exceeded
the stated total project cost. Therefore, the PFC amount for each
project was reduced.
    Decision Date: August 24, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Akron--Canton Regional Airport Authority, Akron,
Ohio.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-CAK.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $7,221,614.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2015.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2019.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Akron-Canton Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use: De-
icing north pad construction. De-icing south pad construction. De-icing
treatment plant. Domestic water service. CTX design and installation.
Landside planning effort study. Runways 5 and 23 environmental
assessment study. Runways 5 and 23 runway safety area fix. Wildlife
habitat removal. Aircraft rescue and firefighting, snow removal
equipment storage facility design. Aircraft rescue

and firefighting, snow removal equipment storage facility construction.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle A. Aircraft rescue and
firefighting vehicle b. Federal inspection facility study.
    Decision Date: August 31, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Irene Porter, Detroit Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Montrose, Montrose, Colorado.
    Application Number: 10-05-C-00-MTJ.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $2,046,975.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: December 1, 2015.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Apron construction. Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle. Conduct
wildlife study. Snow removal equipment. Terminal building expansion.
Enhanced taxiway centerline markings. Security fence. PFC
administration.
    Decision Date: September 1, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Long Beach, California.
    Application Number: 10-05-C-00-LGB.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $10,845,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2025.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2027.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled/
on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Long Beach/Daughterty Field Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Airfield pavement and infrastructure improvements. Airfield signage
replacement. Aircraft rescue and firefighting station improvements.
Terminal area access road. Residential sound attenuation program.
    Decision Date: September 2, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Darlene Williams, Los Angeles
Airports District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Natrona Board of Trustees, Casper,
Wyoming.
    Application Number: 10-06-C-00-CPR.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $300,545.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2011.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Acquire runway broom. Taxiway Alpha rehabilitation design. Acquire
passenger boarding ramp. Acquire 1,500 gallon aircraft rescue and
firefighting vehicle. Cargo master plan. Rehabilitate taxiway Alpha.
Rehabilitate taxiway Alpha design. Installation of common-use passenger
jetway. Rehabilitation of aircraft parking ramp. Security upgrades.
Rehabilitation of aircraft parking ramp design. Airport layout plan.
Airport security enhancements. Acquire chemical spreader/acquire
airfield friction decelerometer.
    Brief Description of Disapproved Project: 9/11 security.
    Determination: Disapproved. The FAA determined that this project
did not meet the requirements of Sec.  158.15(b).
    Decision Date: September 10, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Lee County Port Authority, Fort Myers, Florida.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-RSW.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $51,877,571.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: February 1, 2015.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1,2018.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Southwest Florida International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$4.50 PFC Level: Aircraft rescue and firefighting station design and
construction. Midfield taxiways and apron system design and
construction. Aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level: PFC implementation and administrative costs.
    Brief Description of Projects Partially Approved for Collection and
Use at a $3.00 PFC Level: Parallel runway 6R/24L and air traffic
control tower design and permitting.
    Determination: Partially approved. The FAA determined that portions
of the proposed project were not justified at this time. Passenger
terminal improvements.
    Determination: Partially approved. The FAA determined that the
portions of the proposed project related to the solar energy project
were not eligible. Mitigation park enhancements/expansion and
environmental compliance programs.
    Determination: Partially approved. The FAA determined that the
automated permit tracking system, best management practices and
cleanup, environmental remediation of the RSW rental car quick turn-
around facility, and cleanup of contaminated soils were not PFC-
eligible. Master planning and noise studies.
    Determination: Partially approved. The FAA determined that the
purchase and installation of a digital document management and
reporting system and the purchase of project management and reporting
software and systems are not PFC eligible.
    Decision Date: September 22, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                                               Amendments to PFC Approvals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                                                        Amendment         Original         Amended         estimated        estimated
                     Amendment No., city, state                       approved dated    approved net     approved net     charge exp.      charge exp.
                                                                                PFC revenue      PFC revenue          date             date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97-04-C-01-ACV, Arcata, CA.........................................         07/27/10       $1,482,300       $1,084,184         06/01/03         06/01/03
02-08-C-05-CVG, Covington, KY......................................         09/07/10      213,098,000      212,737,000         05/01/09         05/01/09
05-09-C-07-CVG, Covington, KY......................................         09/07/10       38,846,000       36,676,000         06/01/11         11/01/10
06-10-C-04-CVG, Covington, KY......................................         09/07/10       42,402,000       35,499,000         07/01/12         11/01/13
07-11-C-02-CVG, Covington, KY......................................         09/07/10        3,590,000        3,601,000         09/01/12         03/01/14
09-12-C-01-CVG, Covington, KY......................................         09/07/10       26,249,000       21,455,000         09/01/14         01/01/16
07-05-C-01-YNG, Youngstown, OH.....................................         09/10/10          441,000          312,696         09/01/12         05/01/11
05-07-C-03-FLL,Fort Lauderdale, FL.................................         09/15/10      110,428,401      111,243,201         11/01/08         11/01/08
08-09-C-01-FLL, Fort Lauderdale, FL................................         09/16/10      143,826,944      100,826,944         10/01/12         11/01/11
00-03-C-02-BIL, Billings, MT.......................................         09/16/10        5,163,262        3,278,253         10/01/05         04/01/04
05-04-C-01-BIL, Billings, MT.......................................         09/16/10        3,300,000        3,285,586         05/01/07         04/01/07
05-08-C-02-BGM, Binghamton, NY.....................................         09/16/10        1,360,195        1,361,418         02/01/08         02/01/08
08-10-C-01-BGM, Binghamton, NY.....................................         09/16/10        1,047,455        1,634,297         10/01/10         03/01/12
08-11-C-01-BGM, Binghamton, NY.....................................         09/16/10          149,796          165,264         08/01/12         09/01/12
09-12-C-01-BGM, Binghamton, NY.....................................         09/16/10           15,421           15,421         09/01/12         10/01/12
10-13-C-01-BGM, Binghamton, NY.....................................         09/16/10          492,974          792,974         07/01/12         04/01/14
09-10-C-01-FLL, Fort Lauderdale, FL................................         09/23/10      223,211,000      227,729,300         03/01/17         04/01/17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2010.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-25994 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75013-75015]
[DOCID:fr10de08-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0940; Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-25]

Proposed Removal and Modification of VOR Federal Airways; Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Federal Airway V-328, and
modify three Federal Airways, V-319, V-333 and V-480, in Alaska. The
FAA is proposing this action in preparation of the eventual
decommissioning from the National Airspace System (NAS) of the Kipnuk,
Very High Ommi-directional Range (VOR), Kipnuk, AK.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
You must identify the docket number FAA-2008-0940 and Airspace Docket
No. 08-AAL-25, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace

and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA-2008-0940
and Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-25) and be submitted in triplicate to
the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. FAA-2008-0940 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-25.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), that proposes to revoke one Federal
Airway V-328, and modify three Federal Airways, V-319, V-333 and V-480
in Alaska. The FAA is proposing this action to remove all airways off
the Kipnuk, Very High Ommi-directional Range (VOR), Kipnuk, AK, in
preparation for the VOR's eventual decommissioning from the National
Airspace System (NAS). The portion of the Victor airways that are
attached to the Kipnuk VOR are proposed to be removed. Two airways (V-
319 and V-333) have the Kipnuk VOR supporting one segment of the
airway, and will simply be shortened. One airway (V-480) would be
modified to remove the Kipnuk from the description. However, three Area
Navigation (RNAV) low altitude T routes will be revised in another
airspace action to continue IFR service on routing along the same
tracks as all four affected airways. The Kipnuk VOR decommissioning
proposal was publicly advertised in non-rulemaking case numbers 02-AAL-
31NR and 06-AAL-32NR. After receiving public comment, the FAA decided
that keeping or moving the VOR was not feasible and that it should be
decommissioned.
    The justification addressed these areas; the VOR was only being
used to support enroute airway operations, and village construction
adjacent to the VOR's location in the Village of Kipnuk was encroaching
on and degrading the VOR's signal in many quadrants. Additionally, the
instrument approaches servicing the airport at Kipnuk are RNAV
approaches, which do not utilize the Kipnuk VOR. This action would be
timed to coincide with the planned navigation aid decommissioning for
July 2, 2009. One Victor airway (V-480) that passes over the Village of
Kipnuk, will remain between Bethel (BET), AK, and Saint Paul Island
(SPY) Nondirectional Beacon, AK, if that airway passes the flight
inspection. The T route revisions mentioned above will be announced in
a separate airspace action, that will also coincide with the July 2,
2009, VOR decommissioning date. The intended effect of this proposal is
to revise three Victor Airways and revoke one Victor Airway when the
Kipnuk (IIK) VOR is decommissioned on July 2, 2009.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to endure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it revokes and modifies VOR Federal Airways in Alaska.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008, is to be amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(b) Alaskan VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-319 [Amended]

    From Yakutat, AK, via Johnstone Point, AK, INT Johnstone Point
286[deg] and Anchorage, AK, 117[deg] radials; Anchorage, AK;
Sparrevohn, AK; Bethel, AK; Hooper Bay, AK; to Nanwak, AK NDB.
* * * * *

V-333 [Amended]

    From Hooper Bay, AK; Nome, AK; to Shishmaref, AK.
* * * * *

V-328 [Removed]

* * * * *

V-480 [Amended]

    From Mt. Moffett, AK, NDB, 20 AGL via St. Paul Island, AK, NDB,
20 AGL; Bethel, AK; McGrath, AK; Nenana, AK; to Fairbanks, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 25, 2008.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
 [FR Doc. E8-29239 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA ICR No.:   1669.06; OMB Control No.: 2070-0158

Attachment 1

Section 406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act

15 U.S.C. 2686

Sec. 2686 Lead hazard information pamphlet

 (a) Lead hazard information pamphlet

Not later than 2 years after October 28, 1992, after notice and
opportunity for comment, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development and with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
shall publish, and from time to time revise, a lead hazard information
pamphlet to be used in connection with this subchapter and section 4852d
of Title 42. The pamphlet shall –

(1) contain information regarding the health risks associated with
exposure to lead;

(2) provide information on the presence of lead-based paint hazards in
federally assisted, federally owned, and target housing;

(3) describe the risks of lead exposure for children under 6 years of
age, pregnant women, women of childbearing age, persons involved in home
renovation, and others residing in a dwelling with lead-based paint
hazards;

(4) describe the risks of renovation in a dwelling with lead-based paint
hazards;

(5) provide information on approved methods for evaluating and reducing
lead-based paint hazards and their effectiveness in identifying,
reducing, eliminating, or preventing exposure to lead-based paint
hazards; (6) advise persons how to obtain a list of contractors
certified pursuant to this subchapter in lead-based paint hazard
evaluation and reduction in the area in which the pamphlet is to be
used;

(7) state that a risk assessment or inspection for lead-based paint is
recommended prior to the purchase, lease, or renovation of target
housing;

(8) state that certain State and local laws impose additional
requirements related to lead-based paint in housing and provide a
listing of Federal, State, and local agencies in each State, including
address and telephone number, that can provide information about
applicable laws and available governmental and private assistance and
financing; and

(9) provide such other information about environmental hazards
associated with residential real property as the Administrator deems
appropriate.

(b) Renovation of target housing

Within 2 years after October 28, 1992, the Administrator shall
promulgate regulations under this subsection to require each person who
performs for compensation a renovation of target housing to provide a
lead hazard information pamphlet to the owner and occupant of such
housing prior to commencing the renovation.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22357-22360]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8677]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur. Information identifying the current participation status of a
community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB)
available at www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/community-status-book. Please note that per Revisions to Publication Requirements
for Community Eligibility Status Information Under the National Flood
Insurance Program, notifications such as this one for scheduled
suspension will no longer be published in the Federal Register as of
June 2021 but will be available at National Flood Insurance Community
Status and Public Notification [bond] FEMA.gov. Individuals without
internet access will be able to contact their local floodplain
management official and/or State NFIP Coordinating Office directly for
assistance.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Details
regarding updated publication requirements of community eligibility
status information under the NFIP can be found on the CSB section at
www.fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives, new and
substantially improved construction, and development in general from
future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood
insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective enforcement measures. The
communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory
requirement for compliance with NFIP regulations, 44 CFR part 59.
Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date
listed in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no
longer be available in the community. FEMA recognizes communities may
adopt and submit the required documentation after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. Their current NFIP participation status can be
verified at anytime on the CSB section at fema.gov.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the published FIRM is indicated in the fourth column of the
table. No direct federal financial assistance (except assistance
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for
construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for
communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than
a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone
areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of
federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the
date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and
unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been
adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6   [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain  Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region 2
New York:
    Lewiston, Town of, Niagara        360502  March 27, 1974,     May 4, 2021...........  May 4, 2021.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 18,
                                               1980, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Lewiston, Village of,             360501  April 18, 1975,     ......do *............   Do.
     Niagara County.                           Emerg; July 6,
                                               1984, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Niagara Falls, City of,           360506  May 9, 1973,        ......do..............   Do.
     Niagara County.                           Emerg; March 16,
                                               1983, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Porter, Town of, Niagara          360510  July 17, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 15,
                                               1983, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Somerset, Town of, Niagara        360512  May 24, 1973,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               3, 1982, Reg; May
                                               4, 2021, Susp.
    Wilson, Town of, Niagara          360514  May 21, 1973,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               1, 1978, Reg; May
                                               4, 2021, Susp.
    Youngstown, Village of,           360515  March 30, 1973,     ......do..............   Do.
     Niagara County.                           Emerg; June 4,
                                               1980, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
           Region 4
Mississippi:
    Byhalia, Town of, Marshall        280112  April 29, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 18,
                                               1987, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Holly Springs, City of,           280113  March 11, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Marshall County.                          Emerg; August 5,
                                               1985, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Marshall County,                  280274  August 4, 1986,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; January
                                               17, 1991, Reg;
                                               May 4, 2021,
                                               Susp.
    Tunica County,                    280236  September 5, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; July 3,
                                               1990, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
South Carolina:
    Duncan, Town of,                  450177  April 29, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Spartanburg County.                       Emerg; May 27,
                                               1977, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Greenville County,                450089  February 12, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; December
                                               2, 1980, Reg; May
                                               4, 2021, Susp.
    Lyman, Town of,                   450219  May 15, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Spartanburg County.                       Emerg; May 27,
                                               1977, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Spartanburg, City of,             450181  January 14, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     Spartanburg County.                       Emerg; June 1,
                                               1978, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Spartanburg County,               450176  March 5, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; August 1,
                                               1984, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Union, City of, Union             450186  June 19, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 16,
                                               1981, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Union County,                     450185  April 8, 1987,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; March 18,
                                               1991, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
           Region 5
Ohio:
    Eastlake, City of, Lake           390313  February 4, 1972,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               18, 1981, Reg;
                                               May 4, 2021,
                                               Susp.
    Fairport Harbor, Village          390314  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     of, Lake County.                          September 13,
                                               2006, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Grand River, Village of,          390315  September 25,       ......do..............   Do.
     Lake County.                              1975, Emerg; July
                                               16, 1979, Reg;
                                               May 4, 2021,
                                               Susp.
    Lake County,                      390771  October 22, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; January 2,
                                               1981, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Lakeline, Village of, Lake        390888  May 27, 1988,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 4,
                                               1988, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Mentor, City of, Lake             390317  December 29, 1972,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               1, 1977, Reg; May
                                               4, 2021, Susp.
    Mentor-on-the-Lake, City          390318  November 28, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     of, Lake County.                          Emerg; August 1,
                                               1979, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    North Perry, Village of,          390742  March 19, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     Lake County.                              Emerg; July 16,
                                               1979, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Timberlake, Village of,           390890  May 27, 1988,       ......do..............   Do.
     Lake County.                              Emerg; August 4,
                                               1988, Reg; May 4,
                                               2021, Susp.
    Willoughby, City of, Lake         390322  June 12, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January
                                               16, 1981, Reg;
                                               May 4, 2021,
                                               Susp.
    Willowick, City of, Lake          390324  February 18, 1976,  May 4, 2021...........  May 4, 2021.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               4, 1979, Reg; May
                                               4, 2021, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*......do and Do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

Eric J. Letvin,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration--FEMA Resilience, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-08703 Filed 4-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 55456-55457]
[DOCID:fr22se06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS06-14-000]

The Detroit Edison Company; Notice of Filing

September 15, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 5, 2006, The Detroit Edison Company
(Detroit Edison) filed a request for clarification that it should not
be considered a transmission provider subject to the Standard of
Conduct. Detroit Edison request for waiver of the Standards of Conduct
imposed on Transmission Providers under sections 358.1, et seq.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on October 5, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15644 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69356-69360]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25088]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96305; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2022-75]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amend the NYSE Arca
Equities Fees and Charges

November 14, 2022.
    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 November 1, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to adopt a new pricing tier, Retail Tier 2.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective November
1, 2022. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt a new
pricing tier, Retail Tier 2. The proposed changes respond to the
current competitive environment where order flow providers have a
choice of where to direct liquidity-providing orders by offering
further incentives for ETP Holders to send additional displayed
liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
November 1, 2022.
Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \4\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\5\ numerous alternative trading systems,\6\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 17% market share.\7\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 10% market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \5\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \6\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \7\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders
\9\ is even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus
off-exchange venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A Retail Order is an agency order that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an ETP Holder,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order to price
or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67540 (July 30, 2012), 77 FR 46539 (August
3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-
exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 15 other exchange
venues for that Retail Order flow that is not directed off-exchange.
Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use exchange
transaction fees and credits, particularly as they relate to competing
for Retail Order flow, because market participants can readily trade on
competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to
be more favorable.
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange has
established a number of Retail Tiers, e.g., Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier
2, Retail Tier 3 and Retail Step-Up Tier, which are designed to provide
an incentive for ETP Holders to route Retail Orders to the Exchange by
providing higher credits for adding liquidity correlated to an ETP
Holder's higher trading volume in Retail Orders on the Exchange. Under
three of these four tiers, ETP Holders also do not pay a fee when such
Retail Orders have a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity from
the Exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an
opportunity to receive enhanced rebates by quoting and trading more on
the Exchange.
    The Exchange currently provides tiered credits for Retail Orders
that provide liquidity on the Exchange. Specifically, Section VII. Tier
Rates--Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share

Price $1.00 or Above), provides a credit of $0.0038 per share for
Adding under Retail Tier 1, a credit of $0.0036 per share for Adding
under Retail Tier 2, a credit of $0.0034 per share for Adding under
Retail Tier 3, and a credit of $0.0035 per share for Adding under
Retail Step-Up Tier.\10\ The Retail Tiers are designed to encourage ETP
Holders that provide displayed liquidity in Retail Orders on the
Exchange to increase that order flow, which would benefit all ETP
Holders by providing greater execution opportunities on the Exchange.
In order to provide an incentive for ETP Holders to direct providing
displayed Retail Order flow to the Exchange, the credits increase in
the various tiers based on increased levels of volume directed to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Fee Schedule, Retail Tiers table under Section VII.
Tier Rates--Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share Price $1.00 or
Above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new pricing tier, Retail Tier
2,\11\ which would provide a credit of $0.0037 per share to ETP Holders
that execute an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that
add or remove liquidity during the month that is equal to at least
0.35% of CADV. As with current Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier 2 and Retail
Step-Up Tier, under the proposed Retail Tier 2, ETP Holders that
qualify for proposed Retail Tier 2 would also not be charged a fee for
Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ With this proposed rule change to adopt new Retail Tier 2,
the Exchange proposes to rename current Retail Tier 2 to Retail Tier
3 and rename current Retail Tier 3 to Retail Tier 4.
    \12\ Pursuant to footnote (e) under Retail Tiers, ETP Holders
that qualify for current Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier 2 and Retail
Step-Up Tier are not charged a fee or provided a credit for Retail
Orders where each side of the executed order (1) shares the same
MPID and (2) is a Retail Order with a time-in-force of Day. See Fee
Schedule. With the proposed renaming of current Retail Tier 2 to
Retail Tier 3, the Exchange also proposes to add Retail Tier 3 to
current footnote (e) to reflect its applicability to the renamed
tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposed rule change, the following credits would be
available to ETP Holders that provide increased levels of displayed
liquidity in Retail Orders on the Exchange:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Tier                       Credit for retail adding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Tier 1................  $0.0038 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Tier 2................  $0.0037 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Tier 3................  $0.0036 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Tier 4................  $0.0034 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Step-Up Tier..........  $0.0035 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage greater
participation from ETP Holders and promote additional liquidity in
Retail Orders. As described above, ETP Holders with liquidity-providing
orders have a choice of where to send those orders. The Exchange
believes that the proposed new increased credit should encourage more
ETP Holders to route their liquidity-providing Retail Order to the
Exchange rather than to a competing exchange.
    The Exchange does not know how much Retail Order flow ETP Holders
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. While the
proposed Retail Tier 2 pricing tier would be available to all ETP
Holders, no ETP Holder currently qualifies given the pricing tier is
new. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets
and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether
this proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holders sending more
of their Retail Orders to the Exchange to qualify for the proposed
Retail Order credit. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty how
many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this opportunity, but
additional liquidity-providing Retail Orders would benefit all market
participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities
on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\14\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
    As noted above, the competition for Retail Order flow is stark
given the amount of retail limit orders that are routed to non-exchange
venues. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to fee changes. This competition is
particularly acute for non-marketable, or limit, retail orders, i.e.,
retail orders that can provide liquidity on an exchange. That
competition is even more fierce for retail limit orders that provide
displayed liquidity on an exchange. With respect to such orders, ETP
Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating
registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain exchange transaction fees, particularly as they relate
to competing for retail orders. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to adopt the Retail Tier
2 pricing tier is reasonable because it would provide ETP Holders with
additional incentives to send a greater number of Retail Orders to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposal represents a
reasonable effort to provide enhanced order execution opportunities for
ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit from the greater amounts of
liquidity on the Exchange, which would

represent a wider range of execution opportunities. The Exchange notes
that market participants are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues if they believe other markets offer more favorable
fees and credits.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
because the increased credit proposed herein would continue to
encourage ETP Holders to send Retail Orders to the Exchange to qualify
for the proposed pricing tier. As noted above, the Exchange operates in
a highly competitive environment, particularly for attracting Retail
Order flow that provides displayed liquidity on an exchange. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to provide credits for
adding liquidity, in general, and higher credits for Retail Orders that
provide displayed liquidity if an ETP Holder meets the requirement for
the Retail Tiers.
    Further, given the competitive market for attracting Retail Orders,
the Exchange notes that with this proposed rule change, the Exchange's
pricing for Retail Orders would be comparable to credits currently in
place on other exchanges that the Exchange competes with for order
flow. For example, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (`EDGX'') provides its
members with a credit of $0.0037 per share for retail orders that add
liquidity to that market if an EDGX member adds liquidity in Retail
Orders of at least 0.45% of CADV.\16\ Additionally, MIAX PEARL, LLC
(``MIAX'') provides is member with a similar credit of $0.0037 per
share for Retail Orders that add liquidity to that market.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See EDGX Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees, at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \17\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Fee_Schedule_09012022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
because it is designed to attract higher volumes of Retail Orders
transacted on the Exchange by ETP Holders which would benefit all
market participants by offering greater price discovery, increased
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
    On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the
Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable
attempt to increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the
Exchange's market share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to adopt new
Retail Tier 2 equitably allocates fees and credits among its market
participants because it is reasonably related to the value of the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume in Retail
Orders. The Exchange believes that pricing is just one of the factors
that ETP Holders consider when determining where to direct their order
flow. Among other things, factors such as execution quality, fill
rates, and volatility, are important and deterministic to ETP Holders
in deciding where to send their order flow.
    Further, the Exchange notes that, with this proposed rule change,
the difference between the highest credit provided for Retail Orders,
$0.0038 per share under Retail Tier 1, and the credit for Retail Orders
that do not qualify for any Retail Order pricing tiers, $0.0032 per
share, is $0.0006, or 15%, which the Exchange believes is relatively
small given the heightened requirements that ETP Holders must meet to
qualify for the higher credit. Similarly, with this proposed rule
change, the difference in the highest credit for Retail Orders, $0.0038
per share under Retail Tier 1 and the credit provided for Retail Orders
to those ETP Holders qualifying for proposed Retail Tier 2, $0.0037 per
share, would only be $0.0001 per share, or less than 3%. Therefore, the
Exchange believes the proposed new Retail Tier 2 pricing tier is
equitably allocated and provides credits that are reasonably related to
the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher
volumes.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed adoption of new
Retail Tier 2 is equitable because the magnitude of the proposed credit
is not unreasonably high relative to credits paid by other exchanges
for orders that provide additional liquidity in Retail Orders.\18\ The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality
for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence,
attract more Retail Orders to the Exchange, thereby improving market-
wide quality and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra notes 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change equitably
allocates its fees and credits because maintaining the proportion of
Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are executed on a
registered national securities exchange (rather than relying on certain
available off-exchange execution methods) would contribute to
investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would
benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Moreover, the proposal neither
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category
of market participant. The Exchange believes that the proposal does not
permit unfair discrimination because the proposal would be applied to
all similarly situated ETP Holders and all ETP Holders would be
similarly subject to the proposed volume requirement to qualify for the
proposed new Retail Tier 2. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed
allocation of fees. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
change would not permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because
the general and tiered rates are available equally to all ETP Holders.
    As described above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow
providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-providing order
flow, and the Exchange believes the proposed adoption of an increased
credit under the proposed new pricing tier will incentivize greater
number of ETP Holders to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
Lastly, the submission of Retail Orders is optional for ETP Holders in
that they could choose whether to submit Retail Orders and, if they do,
the extent of its activity in this regard. The Exchange believes that
it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in
the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose

any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above,
the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the
submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing
order execution opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's
goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition
among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual
stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \20\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Particularly, the proposed change applies to all ETP Holders equally in
that all ETP Holders are eligible for the proposed pricing tier, have a
reasonable opportunity to meet the proposed pricing tier's criteria and
will all receive the proposed rebate if such criteria is met. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
its competitors. The proposed change is designed to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed new
pricing tier would continue to incentivize market participants to
submit orders that qualify as Retail Order to the Exchange. Greater
overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency
would benefit all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing
market quality and would continue to encourage ETP Holders to send
their orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing towards a robust and
well-balanced market ecosystem. Additionally, the proposed rule change
would apply to all ETP Holders equally in that all ETP Holders would be
eligible for the proposed pricing tier, have a reasonable opportunity
to meet the proposed pricing tier's criteria and would all receive the
proposed credit if such criteria is met.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange's market share of
intraday trading (i.e., excluding auctions) is currently less than 10%.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees
and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with off-
exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
and credits in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe
this proposed fee change would impose any burden on intermarket
competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b 4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-75 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-75. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-75, and should be
submitted on or before December 9, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25088 Filed 11-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18085]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07045]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0067, SEC File No. 270-064]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form S-11.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') this request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form S-11 (17 CFR 239.18) is the registration statement form used
to register securities issued by real estate investment trusts or by
issuers whose business is primarily that of acquiring and holding for
investment interests in real estate under the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). The information filed with the Commission
permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and
assures public availability and dissemination of such information.
Information provided is mandatory. We estimate that Form S-11 takes
approximately 779.04 hours per response and is filed by approximately
100 issuers annually. In addition, we estimate that 25% of the 779.04
hours per response (194.76 hours) is prepared by the issuer for an
annual reporting burden of 19,476 hours (194.76 hours per response x
100 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov .
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: March 25, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07045 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76829-76830]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30248]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[R08-WR-2013-0007; FRL-9904-28-Region-8]

Approval of Application Submitted by Eastern Shoshone Tribe and
Northern Arapaho Tribe for Treatment in a Similar Manner as a State
Under the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that the EPA Regional Administrator for
Region 8 has approved the December 2008 application submitted by the
Northern Arapaho Tribe and Eastern Shoshone Tribe (Tribes) of the Wind
River Indian Reservation for treatment in a similar manner as a state
(TAS) pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the EPA's implementing
regulations for

purposes of certain Clean Air Act provisions. None of the provisions
for which the Tribes requested eligibility entails the exercise of
Tribal regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: EPA's decision approving the Tribes' TAS application was issued
and took effect on December 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the Wind River TAS Decision
Document, Attachment 1 (Legal Analysis of the Wind River Indian
Reservation Boundary), Attachment 2 (Capability Statement), and other
supporting information at the EPA Region 8 Office, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. If you wish to review the documents in
hard copy, EPA requests that you contact the individual listed below to
view these documents. You may view the hard copies of these documents
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an
appointment at least 24 hours before the day of your visit.
Additionally, these documents are available electronically at: http://www2.epa.gov/region8/tribal-assistance-program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Daly, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2008, as supplemented on
December 23, 2008, the Tribes submitted their TAS application as
authorized by Clean Air Act section 301(d) (42 U.S.C. 7601(d)) and
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 49. In their application, the Tribes
requested TAS eligibility for purposes of Clean Air Act provisions that
generally relate to grant funding (e.g., for air quality planning
purposes) (section 105 (42 U.S.C. 7405)); involvement in EPA national
ambient air quality redesignations for the Reservation (section
107(d)(3) (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)); receiving notices of, reviewing, and/
or commenting on certain nearby permitting and sources (sections
505(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 7661d(a)(2)) and 126 (42 U.S.C. 7426); receiving
risk management plans of certain stationary sources (section Sec.
112(r)(7)(B)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)(B)(iii)); and participation in
certain interstate and regional air quality bodies (sections 169B (42
U.S.C. 7492), 176A (42 U.S.C. 7506a) and 184 (42 U.S.C. 7511c). None of
the provisions for which the Tribes requested eligibility entails the
exercise of Tribal regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. The
Tribes' TAS application thus does not request, and EPA's decision to
approve the application does not approve, Tribal authority to implement
any Clean Air Act regulatory programs or to otherwise implement Tribal
regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.
    In accordance with EPA's regulations, as part of its review
process, EPA notified all appropriate governmental entities and the
public of the Tribes' TAS application and in that notice specified the
geographic boundaries of the Wind River Indian Reservation as
identified in the Tribes' application. EPA afforded the appropriate
governmental entities and the public a period totaling 60 days to
provide written comments regarding any dispute concerning the boundary
of the Reservation. Several commenters disagreed with the Tribes'
Reservation boundary description, asserting that a 1905 Congressional
Act, 33 Stat. 1016 (1905) (1905 Act), altered and diminished the
Reservation boundary. Consistent with established TAS procedures, EPA
afforded the Tribes an opportunity to respond to comments received by
EPA on the Tribes' application and has previously made all comments
received and the Tribes' responses thereto available to the public. In
addition, because EPA was aware of existing disagreements regarding the
Reservation boundary, EPA exercised its discretion to consult with the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), which has expertise on Indian
country issues. On October 26, 2011, EPA received an opinion from the
DOI Solicitor addressing the Reservation boundary.
    On December 4, 2013, the Tribes sent EPA a letter requesting that
EPA not address at this time the lands subject to Section 1 of the 1953
Act, 67 Stat. 592 (1953), and stating that the Tribes would notify EPA
in writing if and when they decide to request an EPA decision with
respect to those lands.
    EPA has carefully considered the application materials, the
comments received from appropriate governmental entities and the public
and the Tribes' responses to those comments, the opinion of the DOI
Solicitor, as well as other materials, relevant case law, applicable
statutory and regulatory provisions, and relevant EPA guidance.
    EPA has determined that the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone
Tribes have met the requirements of CAA Sec.  301(d)(2) and 40 CFR 49.6
and are therefore approved to be treated in a similar manner as a state
for purposes of CAA Sec. Sec.  105, 505(a)(2), 107(d)(3),
112(r)(7)(B)(iii), 126, 169B, 176A, and 184. EPA's decision also
concludes that the boundaries of the Reservation encompass and include,
subject to the proviso below concerning the 1953 Act, the area set
forth in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger, 15 Stat. 673 (1868), less
those areas conveyed by the Tribes under the 1874 Lander Purchase Act,
18 Stat. 291 (1874), and the 1897 Thermopolis Purchase Act, 30 Stat. 93
(1897), and including certain lands located outside the original
boundaries that were added to the Reservation under subsequent
legislation in 1940, 54 Stat. 628 (1940). With regard to the lands
subject to Section 1 of the 1953 Act, 67 Stat. 592 (1953), consistent
with the Tribes' request that EPA's TAS decision not address the lands
described in the 1953 Act at this time, the lands are not included in
the geographic scope of approval for this decision. EPA's TAS decision
therefore does not address the 1953 Act area. Thus, EPA approved the
Tribes' Application for Treatment in a Manner Similar to a State Under
the Clean Air Act for Purposes of Section 105 Grant Program, Affected
State Status and Other Provisions for Which No Separate Tribal Program
is Required.
    A detailed explanation of EPA's approval of the Tribes' TAS
application is contained within the Decision Document and accompanying
attachments referred to in the ADDRESSES section of this notice and at
http://www2.epa.gov/region8/tribal-assistance-program.
    Judicial Review: Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1)), Petitioners may seek judicial review of this
approval in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Any petition for judicial review shall be filed within 60 days from the
date this notice appears in the Federal Register, i.e., not later than
February 18, 2014.

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

    Dated: December 11, 2013.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-30248 Filed 12-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 8399-8400]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review; Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT published
a document in the Federal Register of January 30, 2008, concerning
request for comments on proposed collection of information in
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.]. The document contained incorrect dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Simmons,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 30, 2008, in FR Doc. 08-377, on
page 5627, in the second column, correct the DATES caption to read:

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2008.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 2008.
Kathleen C. DeMeter,
Director, Office of Defects Investigation.
[FR Doc. E8-2694 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19122-19123]
[FR Doc No: E9-9533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory
Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management
Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory
Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 5, 2009, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at FAA Headquarters, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Bessie Coleman Conference Center (2nd Floor),
Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org. Metro: L'Enfant Plaza Station
(Use 7th & Maryland Exit).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee
meeting. The agenda will include:
    [dec222] Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
    [dec222] Report from RTCA Task Force on NextGen Mid-Term
Implementation (NextGen TF).
    [dec222] ATMAC Member Discussion and Recommendations.
    [dec222] Closing Plenary (Other Business, Member Discussion,
Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-9533 Filed 4-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P