[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36315-36316]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11739]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0205; FRL-10981-01-R3]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition To Object to the
Title V Permit for Cove Point LNG Terminal; Maryland

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed an Order, dated March 8,
2023, granting a petition to object to a state operating permit issued
by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The Order responds
to an October 28, 2022 petition, relating to the Cove Point LNG
Terminal (Cove Point), a liquefied natural gas storage and terminal
facility located in Calvert County, Maryland. The petition was
submitted by the Environmental Integrity Project and the Chesapeake
Climate Action Network (the Petitioners). This Order constitutes final
action on that petition requesting that the Administrator object to the
issuance of the proposed CAA title V permit.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final Order, the petition, and all pertinent
information relating thereto can be requested by electronic mail to the
address set forth below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
The final Order is also available electronically at the following
website: www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Willson, Permits Branch, Air &
Radiation Division, EPA Region III,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and object to, as appropriate, title V operating permits
proposed by state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2)

of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator
within 60 days after the expiration of a review period to object to a
state title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must
be based only on objections raised with reasonable specificity during
the public comment period, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it
was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or
that the grounds for objection or other issue arose after the comment
period.
    MDE issued the final Cove Point renewal operating permit (permit
no. 24-009-0021) on September 15, 2022. In their October 28, 2022
petition (numbered III-2022-14), the Petitioners sought EPA objection
on the basis that the title V permit failed to include any testing,
monitoring, or reporting requirements that assured compliance with
certain project-wide particulate matter limits, and failed to set forth
testing, monitoring, or reporting requirements sufficient to assure
continuous compliance with certain unit-specific and project-wide
particulate matter limits. The Order explains the reasons behind EPA's
decision to grant the petition for objection.

Cristina Fernandez,
Director, Air & Radiation Division, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2023-11739 Filed 6-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 21)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5776-5777]
[DOCID:fr31ja08-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29260; Airspace Docket 07-ASO-24]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Winona, MS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Winona,
MS. An Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) Runways (RWY) 03-21 has been
developed for Winona-Montgomery County Airport. As a result, controlled
airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is
needed to contain the SIAP and for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at Winona-Montgomery County Airport. The operating status of
the airport will change from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to include IFR
operations concurrent with the publication of the SIAP. This action
enhances the safety and airspace management of Winona-Montgomery County
Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17. 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE. West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527. You must identify the
docket number FAA-2007-29260; Airspace Docket 07-ASO-24, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office 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 Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support,
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, view 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 and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Those wishing the FAA to
acknowledge

receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29260; Airspace
Docket No. 07-ASO-24.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter. All communications received before the
specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking
action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may
be changed in light of the comments received. 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 or the Federal Register's web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of
Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No.
11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Winona, MS. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are
published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
    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.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, 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 I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it proposes to establish Class E airspace at Winona, MS.

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, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; 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 Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASO MS E5 Winona, MS [New]

Winona-Montgomery County Airport, MS
    (Lat. 33[deg]27'54'' N., long. 89[deg]43'48.8'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of Winona-Montgomery County Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 14, 2007.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 08-351 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31543-31549]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10470]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97486; File No. SR-C2-2023-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Update
Its Fees Schedule

May 11, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 28, 2023, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``C2'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
update its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Cboe Data Services, LLC
(``CDS'') section of its Fees Schedule.\3\ Particularly, the Exchange
proposes to (i) reformat the section of its Fees Schedule pertaining to
market data fees, (ii) harmonize various market data related
definitions to align with the definitions used by the Exchange's
affiliates and (iii) modify its fees relating to the distribution of
the BBO data feed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
January 3, 2023 (SR-C2-2023-001). On March 1, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and replaced it with SR-C2-2023-007, which was
submitted on February 28, 2023. On April 28, 2023 the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
    \4\ The BBO Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes the
following information: (i) outstanding quotes and standing orders at
the best available price level on each side of the market; (ii)
executed trades time, size, and price; (iii) totals of customer
versus non-customer contracts at the best bid and offer (``BBO'');
(iv) all-or-none contingency orders priced better than or equal to
the BBO; (v) expected opening price and expected opening size; (vi)
end-of-day summaries by product, including open, high, low, and
closing price during the trading session; (vi) recap messages any
time there is a change in the open, high, low or last sale price of
a listed option; (vii) COB information; and (viii) product IDs and
codes for all listed options contracts. The quote and last sale data
contained in the BBO data feed is identical to the data sent to the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') for redistribution to
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reformatting
    The Exchange first proposes to eliminate references to CDS and
instead refer to the ``Exchange'', as well as rename the section
currently titled ``Cboe Data Services, LLC Fees'' to ``Market Data
Fees'' to align with the terminology and heading of its affiliates, BZX
Options and EDGX Options. The Exchange notes that no substantive
changes are being made with the

elimination of the references to CDS fees. Rather, the proposed change
more accurately reflects the Exchange's role as it relates to its
market data products as CDS is merely an affiliate that is the Cboe
contracting entity for all U.S. equities and options market data
products, but the data products themselves are made available by the
Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to reformat and reorganize the
layout of the fees under the Cboe Data Services, LLC (``CDS'') section
of the Fees Schedule to align with formatting of the corresponding
section in the fee schedules of the Exchange's affiliated options
exchanges, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options'') and Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options''), including adding a new
``Definitions'' section under the CDS Fees (or as proposed, the Market
Data Fees) section. As part of the reformatting, the Exchange notes
that it is moving up the ``Trial Usage'' description from the end of
the Fees Schedule towards the top (no changes are being made to the
language under this section).
Definitions
    In order to provide consistent rules and terminology amongst the
Exchange and its affiliated options exchanges, Cboe Options Exchange,
Inc. (``Cboe Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options'') and
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'') (collectively,
``Affiliates''), the Exchange is proposing to amend various definitions
and product names to harmonize with such terms used by its affiliates
BZX Options and EDGX Options, as well as definitions used in Cboe's
Cboe Global Markets Global Data Agreement and Cboe Global Markets North
American Data Policies.\5\ As such, the proposed rule change deletes a
defined term, adds certain defined terms, relocates certain terms and
makes certain non-substantive changes to existing definitions, as
further described in the table below. The proposed rule change makes
these changes throughout the market data fee language to conform to the
proposed defined terms and the Exchange uses the proposed updated terms
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Cboe Options will be submitting a similar filing to
harmonize its definitions and products names to align with those of
BZX Options and EDGX Options as well.
    \6\ All Distributors of C2 Options proprietary market data
products are subject to Cboe Global Markets North American Data
Policies and must still sign the Cboe Global Markets Global Data
Agreement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Defined term                      Provision             Current location      Description of change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer..........................  A ``Customer'' is any       Section I of the Cboe  Deletes defined termto
                                     person, company or other    Data Services, LLC     align terms with BZX
                                     entity that, pursuant to    (``CDS'') Section of   Options and EDGX
                                     a market data agreement     the Fees Schedule.     Options. The concept of
                                     with CDS, is entitled to                           ``Customer'' is also
                                     receive data, either                               better captured through
                                     directly from CDS or                               the proposed new term
                                     through an authorized                              ``Distributor.''
                                     redistributor (i.e., a                             Eliminates language that
                                     Customer or an extranet                            specifies that a person,
                                     service provider),                                 company, entity that
                                     whether that data is                               does not have a market
                                     distributed externally or                          data agreement in place
                                     used internally.                                   with CDS is not
                                    An entity or person that                            considered a
                                     receives BBO data from a                           ``Customer'' since the
                                     Customer through a                                 Exchange is not
                                     Display Only Service is                            proposing to use that
                                     not a ``Customer'' unless                          term in the Fees
                                     it has a market data                               Schedule with respect to
                                     agreement in place with                            market data fees and
                                     CDS''.                                             does not believe it's
                                                                                necessary to clarify
                                                                                this point in the Fees
                                                                                Schedule.\6\ Neither BZX
                                                                                Options nor EDGX Options
                                                                                refer to market data
                                                                                agreements in their
                                                                                respective Fees
                                                                                Schedules.
Distributor.......................  A Distributor of an         N/A..................  Codifies definition of
                                     Exchange Market Data                               ``Distributor'' under
                                     product is any entity                              new ``Definitions''
                                     that receives the                                  section of the C2
                                     Exchange Market Data                               Options Fees Schedule.
                                     product directly from the                          An Exchange Market Data
                                     Exchange or indirectly                             Product refers to any
                                     through another entity                             Data Product set forth
                                     and then distributes it                            in the Market Data Fees
                                     internally or externally                           section of the
                                     to a third party.                                  Exchange's Fees
                                                                                Schedule. Entities, not
                                                                                individual persons,
                                                                                distribute market data.
                                                                                Definition is identical
                                                                                to the definition used
                                                                                by BZX Options and EDGX
                                                                                Options and
                                                                                substantially similar to
                                                                                the language in the
                                                                                first sentence of the
                                                                                definition of
                                                                                ``Customer'' in the Fees
                                                                                Schedule.
Internal Distributor..............  An Internal Distributor of  N/A..................  Codifies definition of ''
                                     an Exchange Market Data                            Internal Distributor
                                     product is a Distributor                           under new
                                     that receives the                                  ``Definitions'' section
                                     Exchange Market Data                               of the C2 Options Fees
                                     product and then                                   Schedule. Definition is
                                     distributes that data to                           identical to the
                                     one or more Users within                           definition used by BZX
                                     the Distributor's own                              Options and EDGX
                                     entity.                                            Options.
External Distributor..............  An External Distributor of  N/A..................  Codifies definition of
                                     an Exchange Market Data                            ``External Distributor''
                                     product is a Distributor                           under new
                                     that receives the                                  ``Definitions'' section
                                     Exchange Market Data                               of the C2 Options Fees
                                     product and then                                   Schedule. Definition is
                                     distributes that data to                           identical to the
                                     a third party or one or                            definition used by BZX
                                     more Users outside the                             Options and EDGX
                                     Distributor's own entity.                          Options.
User..............................  A User of an Exchange       N/A..................  Codifies definition of
                                     Market Data product is a                           ``User'' under new
                                     natural person, a                                  ``Definitions'' section
                                     proprietorship,                                    of the C2 Options Fees
                                     corporation, partnership,                          Schedule. Definition is
                                     or entity, or device                               identical to the one
                                     (computer or other                                 used by BZX Options and
                                     automated service), that                           EDGX Options.
                                     is entitled to receive
                                     Exchange data.

Non-Professional User.............  A ``Non-Professional        Section III..........  Relocates definition
                                     User'' is a natural                                under new
                                     person or qualifying                               ``Definitions'' section
                                     trust that uses Data only                          of the C2 Options Fees
                                     for personal purposes and                          Schedule and updates the
                                     not for any commercial                             rule reference to
                                     purpose and, for a                                 ``section 201(11)'' of
                                     natural person who works                           the Investment Advisors
                                     in the United States, is                           Act of 1940 to ``section
                                     not: (i) registered or                             202(a)(11)''.
                                     qualified in any capacity
                                     with the Securities and
                                     Exchange Commission, the
                                     Commodities Futures
                                     Trading Commission, any
                                     state securities agency,
                                     any securities exchange
                                     or association, or any
                                     commodities or futures
                                     contract market or
                                     association; (ii) engaged
                                     as an ``investment
                                     adviser'' as that term is
                                     defined in Section
                                     201(11) of the Investment
                                     Advisors Act of 1940
                                     (whether or not
                                     registered or qualified
                                     under that Act); or (iii)
                                     employed by a bank or
                                     other organization exempt
                                     from registration under
                                     federal or state
                                     securities laws to
                                     perform functions that
                                     would require
                                     registration or
                                     qualification if such
                                     functions were performed
                                     for an organization not
                                     so exempt; or, for a
                                     natural person who works
                                     outside of the United
                                     States, does not perform
                                     the same functions as
                                     would disqualify such
                                     person as a Non-
                                     Professional User if he
                                     or she worked in the
                                     United States.
Professional User.................  A Professional User of an   Section III..........  Relocates definition
                                     Exchange Market Data                               under new
                                     product is any User other                          ``Definitions'' section
                                     than a Non-Professional                            of the C2 Options Fees
                                     User.                                              Schedule and eliminates
                                                                                reference to ``natural
                                                                                person'' recipient of
                                                                                ``Data'' to align with
                                                                                the ``Professional
                                                                                User'' definition used
                                                                                by BZX Options and EDGX
                                                                                Options, as well as
                                                                                Cboe's market data
                                                                                policies and agreements.
Display Only Service..............  A ``Display Only Service''  Section I............  Relocates definition
                                     allows a natural person                            under new
                                     end-user to view and                               ``Definitions'' section
                                     manipulate data using the                          of the C2 Options Fees
                                     Distributor's                                      Schedule. Replaces
                                     computerized service, but                          reference to
                                     not to save, copy, export                          ``Customer'' with
                                     or transfer the data or                            ``Distributor''.
                                     any results of the
                                     manipulation to any other
                                     computer hardware,
                                     software or media, except
                                     for printing it to paper
                                     or other non-magnetic
                                     media.
Device............................  A ``Device'' means any      Section I under        Relocates definition
                                     computer, workstation or    ``User Fees''.         under new
                                     other item of equipment,                           ``Definitions'' section
                                     fixed or portable, that                            of the C2 Options Fees
                                     receives, accesses and/or                          Schedule.
                                     displays data in visual,
                                     audible or other form.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to rename the following market data
products and fees and use the proposed names herein, in order to align
with the naming convention used by the Exchange's affiliates, BZX
Options, EDGX Options and Cboe Options, as applicable for similar data
products and fees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See BZX Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data Fees and
EDGX Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data Fees. See also Cboe
Data Services, LLC Fees Schedule, Section IV. System Fees.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Current name                         Proposed name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBO Data Feed.............................  C2 Options Top.
Book Depth Data Feed......................  C2 Options Depth.
Complex Order Book (COB) Data Feed........  C2 Complex Order Book (COB).
Port Fee..................................  Direct Data Access Fee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to eliminate, modify and
adopt the terms discussed above will add transparency to the Fees
Schedule and will protect investors, as the changes provide more
clarity within the rule and more harmonized rule language across the
Fees Schedules of the Cboe affiliated options exchanges, as well as
well as definitions used in Cboe's Cboe Global Markets Global Data
Agreement and Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies.
Further, the Exchange notes that the above-described changes relating
to definitions are non-substantive changes or provide additional detail
in the rule regarding current market participants that purchase or use
the Exchange's market data products. None of these differences impact
the manner in which any of the terms and corresponding fees apply,
including how the Exchange would have otherwise characterized a
Distributor or User (Professional or Non-Professional) as such
definitions are more consistent with the definitions already used in
the Cboe Global Markets Global Data Agreement and Cboe Global Markets
North American Data Policies, to which all firms receiving C2 Options
market data must adhere to.
C2 Options Top Fee Changes
    The Exchange first proposes to modify its current User Fees. The
Exchange currently charges all Distributors a Distribution Fee of
$2,500 per month (which applies for Internal and/or External
Distribution). Additionally, the Exchange currently assesses a ``User
Fee'' of $50 per month per Device or user ID for use of the data in the
C2 Options Top Data Feed by ``Display Only Service'' users. The current
User fee is payable only for ``external'' Display Only Service users
who receive C2 Options Top and are not employees or natural person
independent contractors of the Distributor, the Distributor's
affiliates or an authorized service facilitator.\8\ Internal
Distributors

may currently distribute C2 Options Top Data to an unlimited number of
internal Users and Devices within the Distributor at no further cost
(aside from the above-mentioned monthly Distribution Fee). The Exchange
proposes to eliminate the current C2 Options Top User fee and in its
place adopt Professional and Non-Professional User fees for C2 Options
Top that would apply to both Internal and External Distributors for all
Professional and Non-Professional Users. Particularly, the Exchange
proposes to charge C2 Options Top Distributors a monthly fee of $5.00
per Professional User and a monthly fee of $0.10 per Non-Professional
User.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to the Cboe Global Markets North American Data
Policies, Distributors must report the number of authorized external
devices that receive C2 Options Top data during a calendar month
within 15 days after such month in the manner and format specified
by the Exchange from time to time to determine applicable fees. In
connection with a Distributor's distribution of the market data
product, Distributors are required to report all Professional and
Non-Professional Users in accordance with the following: Distributor
should count as one User each unique User that the Distributor has
entitled to have access to the market data product. However, where a
device is dedicated specifically to a single individual, the
Distributor should count only the individual and need not count the
device. Distributor should identify and report each unique User. If
a User uses the same unique method to gain access to the market data
product, the Distributor should count that as one User. However, if
a unique User uses multiple methods to gain access to the market
data product (e.g., a single User has multiple passwords and user
identifications), the Distributor should report all of those methods
as an individual User. Distributors should report each unique
individual person who receives access through multiple devices as
one User so long as each device is dedicated specifically to that
individual. If a Distributor entitles one or more individuals to use
the same device, the Distributor should include only the
individuals, and not the device, in the count.
    \9\ Distributors that receive C2 Options Top Data will be
required to count every Professional User and Non-Professional User
to which they provide the data feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange lastly proposes to establish a $10,000 per month
Enterprise Fee that will permit a Distributor to purchase a monthly
(and optional) Enterprise license to receive the C2 Options Top Data
for distribution to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users. The Enterprise Fee is an alternative to
Professional and Non-Professional User fees and is assessed in addition
to the Distribution Fee, which the Exchange proposes to make clear in
the Fee Schedule. The Enterprise Fee may provide an opportunity to
reduce fees. For example, if a Distributor has 10,000 Professional
Users who each receive C2 Options Top at $5.00 per month (as proposed),
then that Distributor will pay $50,000 per month in Professional Users
fees. If the Distributor instead were to purchase the proposed
Enterprise license, it would alternatively pay a flat fee of $10,000
for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. A
Distributor must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each entity that
controls the display of C2 Options Top if it wishes for such Users to
be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees.\10\ A
Distributor that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its
number of such Users on a monthly basis. Rather, every six months, the
Distributor must provide the Exchange with a count of the total number
of Professional and Non-Professional Users of C2 Options Top.\11\ The
Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license is voluntary,
and a firm may elect to instead use the per User structure and benefit
from the proposed per User Fees described above. For example, a firm
that does not have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from
purchase of the license need not do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, if a Distributor (e.g., Refinitiv) that
distributes C2 Options Top to Retail Brokerage Firm A and Retail
Brokerage Firm B (which ``entities'' redistribute BZX Options Top to
its respective Users) and wishes to have the Users under each firm
covered by an Enterprise license, the Distributor would be subject
to two Enterprise Fees.
    \11\ See Cboe Global Markets north American Data Policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes this proposal is
consistent with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\14\
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 11(A) of the Act as it supports (i) fair
competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets, and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.\15\ The
Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options
exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.\17\
The Exchange believes top-of-book quotation and transaction data is
highly competitive as national securities exchanges compete vigorously
with each other to provide efficient, reliable, and low-cost data to a
wide range of investors and market participants. Indeed, there are
several competing products offered by other national securities
exchanges today, not counting products offered by the Exchange's
affiliates, and each of the Exchange's affiliated U.S. options
exchanges also offers similar top-of-book data.\18\ Each of those
exchanges offer top-of-book quotation and last sale information based
on their own quotation and trading activity that is substantially
similar to the information provided by the Exchange through the C2
Options Top Feed. Further, the quote and last sale data contained in
the C2 Options Data Feed is identical to the data sent to OPRA for
redistribution to the public.\19\ Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book
data is widely available today from a number of different sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Month-to-Date
Volume Summary (April 24, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
    \18\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Proprietary Market Data Fees
Schedule, MIAX Options Exchange, Fee Schedule, Section 6 (Market
Data Fees), Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 10
(Proprietary Data Feed Fees) and Cboe Data Services, LLC Fees
Schedule.
    \19\ The Exchange notes that it makes available the BBO data and
last sale data that is included in the C2 Options Top Data Feed no
earlier than the time at which the Exchange sends that data to OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the C2 Options Top Data Feed is distributed and purchased
on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data
distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data
available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at
any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. As described above, market participants
have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to
choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other
exchanges and consolidated data. Further, the

Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products
available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any
customers. Moreover, persons (including broker-dealers) who subscribe
to any exchange proprietary data feed must also have equivalent access
to consolidated Options Information \20\ from OPRA for the same classes
or series of options that are included in the proprietary data feed
(including for exclusively listed products), and proprietary data feeds
cannot be used to meet that particular requirement.\21\ As such, all
proprietary data feeds are purely optional and only those that deem the
product to be of sufficient overall value and usefulness would purchase
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Consolidated Options Information'' means consolidated
Last Sale Reports combined with either consolidated Quotation
Information or the BBO furnished by OPRA. Access to consolidated
Options Information is deemed ``equivalent'' if both kinds of
information are equally accessible on the same terminal or work
station. See Limited Liability Company Agreement of Options Price
Reporting Authority, LLC (``OPRA Plan''), Section 5.2(c)(iii). The
Exchange notes that this requirement under the OPRA Plan is also
reiterated under the Cboe Global Markets Global Data Agreement and
Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies, which subscribers
to any exchange proprietary product must sign and are subject to,
respectively. Additionally, the Exchange's Data Order Form (used for
requesting the Exchange's market data products) requires
confirmation that the requesting market participant receives data
from OPRA.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, 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.'' \22\ Making
similar data products available to market participants fosters
competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges
to charge supracompetitive fees. In the event that a market participant
views one exchange's data product as more or less attractive than a
competitor they can and do switch between similar products. The
proposed fees are a result of the competitive environment, as the
Exchange seeks to adopt fees to attract purchasers of C2 Options Top
Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to adopt new
Professional and Non-Professional User fees are reasonable as the User
fees continue to be to be in line with User fees assessed by other
exchanges for similar data.\23\ Moreover, Display Only Service Users
will now be subject to lower fees as the Exchange proposes to
significantly reduce the monthly User fees from $50 per Device or User
ID for Display Only Service User to $5.00 per Professional User or
$0.10 per Non-Professional User. Although External Distributors are
currently only subject to a User fee for external Users that are
Display Only Service Users, the proposed fee for all external Users
(which are likely to be Non-Professional Users) is significantly lower
(i.e., $0.10 per Non-Professional User) than the current $50 User fee.
Moreover, the proposed fee structure of differentiated Professional and
Non-Professional fees that are paid by both Internal and External
Distributors for all Users, not just Display Only Service users, has
long been used by other exchanges, including the Exchange, for their
proprietary data products, and by the OPRA plan in order to reduce the
price of data to retail investors and make it more broadly
available.\24\ The Exchange also believes offering C2 Options Top to
Non-Professional Users at a rate lower than the rate for Professional
Users results in greater equity among data recipients, as Professional
Users are categorized as such based on their employment and
participation in financial markets, and thus, are compensated to
participate in the markets. Although Non-Professional Users too can
receive significant financial benefits through their participation in
the markets, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge more to
those Users who are more directly engaged in the markets. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to Distributors
for their Professional and Non-professional Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See e.g., Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section
10 (Proprietary Data Feed Fees), which provides for a fee of $40 per
month to professional users and $1.00 per month to non-professional
users to cover the usage of PHLX Options (TOPO) Data, TOPO Plus
Orders, PHLX Orders and PHLX Depth Data feeds. See also NYSE
American Options Proprietary Market Data Fees schedule, which
provides for a fee of $50 per month to professional users and $1.00
per month to non-professional users of American Options Top Data,
American Options Deep and American Options Complex products. By
comparison, the total Professional User fee for C2 Options Top and
C2 Options COB is in line, and in fact lower than the above
Professional User fee at $30 per Professional User (i.e., $5 per
Professional Users of C2 Options Top, as proposed, and $25 per
Professional User of C2 Options COB). The Exchange's combined Non-
Professional User Fee at $0.10 per Non-Professional User (i.e.,
$0.30 per Non-Professional User of C2 Options Top, as proposed, and
$0 per Non-Professional User of C2 Options COB) is lower than PHLX's
and NYSE American's aforementioned Non-Professional User fees. C2
Options Depth is not included in the above comparison because there
are no User fees based on Professional or Non-Professional
classification, but rather a $50 per month, more Device or User ID
fee for Display Only Service users only. Further there are no fees
for any internal Users.
    \24\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (March
9, 2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131)
(establishing the $15 Non-Professional User Fee (Per User) for NYSE
OpenBook); See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67589
(August 2, 2012), 77 FR 47459 (August 8, 2012) (revising OPRA's
definition of the term ``Nonprofessional''); and See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70683 (October 15, 2013), 78 FR 62798
(October 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-087) (establishing Professional and
Non-Professional User fees for Cboe Options COB Data Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Internal Distributors do not currently pay any User fees
for C2 Options Top, the Exchange believes its reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to start assessing User fees, as internal
and external users will be treated the same. Additionally, other
exchanges also assess User fees for internal users of similar data,
including the Exchange's affiliates.\25\ Moreover, the proposed rates
Internal Distributors will be subject to for User fees are in line with
User fees assessed by other exchanges for similar data.\26\ The
Exchange believes the proposed monthly User fees for which Internal
Distributors of C2 Options Top will now be subject to are equitably
allocated because they would be charged on an equal basis for all
internal Users that receive C2 Options Top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See BZX Options Fees Schedule, Market Data Fees and EDGX
Options Fees Schedule, Market Data Fees. See also Nasdaq PHLX
Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 10 (Proprietary Data Feed Fees).
    \26\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Enterprise Fee for C2 Options Top Feed is equitable
and reasonable as the proposed fee could result in a fee reduction for
Distributors with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users. If a Distributor has a smaller number of Professional Users of
C2 Options Top Data, then it may continue using the per User structure
and benefit from the proposed per C2 Options Top User Fee reductions.
By reducing prices for Distributors with a large number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may
choose to receive and to distribute C2 Options Top Data, thereby
expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of
investors.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is
reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain recipients
that have large

numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users. Firms that pay the
proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the number of Users on
a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather will only have to
count Professional and Non-Professional Users every six months, which
is a significant reduction in administrative burden. Finally, as
described above the Enterprise Fee is entirely optional. A firm that
does not have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from purchase of
the license need not do so.
    The Exchange lastly believes the proposed changes relating to the
defined terms and terminology will provide additional specificity and
clarity, while also harmonizing the various definition with that of its
affiliates and providing more consistency with definitions used in the
Cboe Global Markets Global Data Agreement and Cboe Global Markets North
American Data Policies. Doing so would ensure consistent terms amongst
the Exchange and its affiliates, as well as the Exchange's data
agreements and policies, thereby reducing the potential for confusion
amongst market data subscribers of the Exchange's and its affiliates'
market data products. Additionally, the proposed new terms are
identical to the terms already used by the Exchange's affiliates BZX
Options and EDGX Options. Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposal
to reformate the fees will provide for a more streamlined fees
schedule, thereby reducing potential confusion. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes the proposed changes remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price
top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that
offer similar data products to their customers. For example, Top-of-
book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges.
In this competitive environment potential Distributors are free to
choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for
market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market
data customers look to purchase cheaper data products, and quality, as
market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant
market liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market
participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market
participants. As discussed, the proposed fees would apply to all
similarly situated Distributors of C2 Options Top on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the differentiated fees for
Professional and Non-Professional Users of C2 Options Top is
appropriate given Professional Users are categorized as such based on
their employment and participation in financial markets, and thus, are
compensated to participate in the markets. Non-Professional Users too
can receive significant financial benefits through their participation
in the markets, however the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
charge more to those Users who are more directly engaged in the
markets. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fee neither
favors nor penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a
manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden
on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market
participants are not forced to subscribe to C2 Options Top Data, or any
of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above. As noted, the quote
and last sale data contained in the Exchange's C2 Option Top feed is
identical to the data sent to OPRA for redistribution to the public.
Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book data is widely available today from a
number of different sources.
    Because market data customers can find suitable substitute feeds,
an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk
that Users may substitute another product. These competitive pressures
ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue
burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so
here.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \28\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2023-012 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-C2-2023-012. 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 office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold
entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject
to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-C2-2023-012 and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10470 Filed 5-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30181]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0136]

Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Crescent City, Crescent
City Harbor, Crescent City, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Crescent
City Fourth of July Fireworks display in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 4 will
be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina
Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-
3585 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 4 on July 4, 2016.
Upon commencement of the 30 minute fireworks display, scheduled to
begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016, the safety zone will encompass the
navigable waters surrounding the land-based launch site on the West
Jetty of Crescent City Harbor within a radius of 700 feet in
approximate position 41[deg]44'41'' N, 124[deg]11'59'' W (NAD 83) for
the Fourth of July Fireworks, Crescent City in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table
1, Item number 4. Upon the conclusion of the fireworks display the
safety zone shall terminate. This safety zone will be in effect from
9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of
enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide
the maritime community with notification of the safety zone and its
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 20, 2016.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2016-11490 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 188 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58491-58492]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-1167]

Controlled Correspondence Related to Generic Drug Development;
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Controlled
Correspondence Related to Generic Drug Development''. The guidance
document provides information regarding the process by which human
generic drug manufacturers and related industry can submit
correspondence to FDA requesting information on generic drug
development. This guidance also describes FDA's process for providing
communications related to such correspondence.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryll Toufanian, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 75, Rm. 1684, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7944<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Controlled Correspondence Related to Generic Drug
Development''. The guidance document provides information regarding the
process by which human generic drug manufacturers and related industry
can submit correspondence to FDA requesting information on generic drug
development. This guidance also describes FDA's process for providing
communications related to such correspondence.
    Under the provisions of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of
2012 (GDUFA), FDA agreed to certain obligations as laid out in the
Generic Drug User Fee Act Program Performance Goals and Procedures for
fiscal years 2013 through 2017 (the GDUFA Commitment Letter) that
accompanies the legislation (Ref. 1). Among those obligations is FDA's
commitment to performance metrics for its responses to controlled
correspondence for fiscal years 2015 through 2017.
    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance announced in the Federal
Register on August 27, 2014 (79 FR 51180). The Agency considered
comments on the draft guidance while finalizing this guidance.
Generally, we revised the draft guidance to provide clarifying and
explanatory information that will assist human generic drug
manufacturers and related industry as they submit controlled
correspondence to FDA. Changes from the draft guidance include a
description of a process to submit information to update the Agency's
Inactive Ingredient Database and a description of enhanced
communication to requestors regarding the status of their controlled
correspondence.
    Two comment threads on the draft guidance benefit from additional

discussion here. Specifically, FDA received numerous comments regarding
two categories of requests that FDA proposed in the draft guidance to
exclude from the controlled correspondence process. First, FDA received
comments requesting that the Agency refrain from excluding requests for
product-specific guidance on demonstrating bioequivalence. FDA declines
to revise the guidance in this fashion. As set out in the draft
guidance, the short timeframe contemplated for the controlled
correspondence responses is inconsistent with the well-established
process for issuing product-specific recommendations described in the
guidance for industry on ``Bioequivalence Recommendations for Specific
Products (June 2010)'', as well as with the principles in the GDUFA
Commitment Letter regarding the Regulatory Science Initiative. Rather
than incorporating such guidance development into the controlled
correspondence process, FDA's Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) is
developing a separate process for product-specific guidance
development.
    This approach is being managed by the Division of Therapeutic
Performance (DTP) within OGD's Office of Research and Standards,
involves representatives from numerous divisions and offices within
OGD, and provides for timely posting of product-specific
recommendations to facilitate generic drug development. Requests for
product-specific guidance development received through the general
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>email account are forwarded directly to DTP
for consideration and tracking. Prioritization of guidance development
is based on a variety of factors, including public health needs,
industry demand for generic development, anticipated expiration of
reference listed drug exclusivity, formulation features and
predictability of in vivo performance, OGD experience with similar
formulations or product types, and the feasibility of different
approaches to demonstrate bioequivalence (e.g., pharmacokinetic/
pharmacodynamics studies, comparative clinical endpoint studies, and in
vitro approaches). FDA anticipates that this targeted development
approach will expedite the availability of product-specific guidances
while supporting the important policies of transparency and maximizing
benefit to the public health.
    Second, FDA received comments regarding its proposed method of
responding to requests related to issues for which the Agency has not
yet determined a policy. Upon review of the comments, FDA is revising
its recommendations related to such inquiries. As described in the
guidance, if there is a better mechanism for a requestor to obtain
comment from FDA on the subject of the request than through a
controlled correspondence, the Agency will direct the requestor to such
a mechanism, e.g., a pre-abbreviated new drug application meeting
request or the Regulatory Science Initiative. For requests for which
the controlled correspondence pathway is the best mechanism, but that
raise issues for which FDA has not determined appropriate policy, such
requests will remain open until such policy decision is made.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on controlled correspondence related to generic
drug development. It does not establish any rights for any person and
is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to collections of information that are subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection
of information has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0797.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

V. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division
of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.
(FDA has verified the Web site address in this reference section,
but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web
site after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)
    1. Generic Drug User Fee Act Program Performance Goals and
Procedures (GDUFA Commitment Letter) for fiscal years 2013 through
2017, available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/GenericDrugUserFees/UCM282505.pdf.

    Dated: September 22, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-24621 Filed 9-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4693-4694]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01723]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9905-98-OA]

Notification of a Public Meeting of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a
public meeting of the CASAC Ozone Review Panel to conduct a peer review
of three draft EPA documents: (1) Health Risk and Exposure Assessment
for Ozone--Second External Review Draft (January 2014), (2) Welfare
Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone--Second External Review Draft
(January 2014) and (3) Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review Draft
(January 2014).

DATES: The CASAC Ozone Review Panel meeting will be held on Tuesday,
March 25, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time), Wednesday,
March 26, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) and on
Thursday, March 27, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Carolina Inn at 211
Pittsboro St., Chapel Hill, NC 27516.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the public meeting may contact Dr. Holly
Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone at (202)
564-2073 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information
concerning the CASAC can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CASAC was established pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C.
7409D(d)(2), to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the
Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related
to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air
quality, sources of air pollution, and the strategies to attain and
maintain air quality standards and to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2.
Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the
chartered CASAC augmented with additional experts, known as the CASAC
Ozone Review Panel, will hold a public meeting to peer review EPA's
draft documents referenced above. These EPA draft documents are
prepared as part of the agency's review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.
    Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically
review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the
NAAQS for the six ``criteria'' air pollutants, including ozone. EPA is
currently reviewing the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-
based) NAAQS for ozone. The CASAC previously reviewed EPA's Health Risk
and Exposure Assessment for Ozone (First External Review Draft--Updated
August 2012) and Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone (First
External Review Draft--Updated August 2012). CASAC's comments on both
of these documents are reported in a letter to the EPA Administrator,
dated November 19, 2012 (EPA-CASAC-13-

002). CASAC also previously reviewed EPA's Policy Assessment for the
Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (First
External Review Draft--August 2012) as reported in a letter to the EPA
Administrator, dated November 26, 2012 (EPA-CASAC-13-003).
    The CASAC Ozone Review Panel will comply with the provisions of
FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the Health
Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone--Second External Review Draft
(January 2014) or concerning the Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment
for Ozone--Second External Review Draft (January 2014) should be
directed to Dr. Bryan Hubbell (hubbell.bryan@epa.gov). Any questions
concerning the Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review Draft (January
2014) should be directed to Ms. Susan Lyon Stone (stone.susan@epa.gov).
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the
calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments for a federal
advisory committee to consider pertaining to EPA's charge to the
committee or review materials. Input from the public to the CASAC will
have the most impact if it provides specific scientific, technical
information or analysis or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of
the technical information for the CASAC's consideration. Members of the
public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal
Officer directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups
requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to
five minutes. Interested parties should contact Dr. Stallworth, DFO, in
writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above
by March 13, 2014, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the
meeting. Written Statements: Written statements should be submitted to
the DFO via email at the contact information noted above by March 13,
2014 for the meeting so that the information may be made available to
the CASAC Panel for their consideration. Written statements should be
supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF,
MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP
format. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post public
comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference.
Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each
document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with
signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that
their personal contact information, if included in any written
comments, may be posted to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted material
will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: The public can view the March 25-27, 2014 meeting
via a non-interactive webcast that will be broadcast on the internet.
The connection information to view the meeting via webcast will be
provided on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac in advance of
the meeting. For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Dr. Holly Stallworth at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,
please contact Dr. Stallworth preferably at least ten days prior to the
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: January 16, 2014.
Christopher Zarba,
Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-01723 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41283-41284]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15004]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[EPA-R02-OAR-2015-0837; FRL-9948-31-Region 2]

Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Program Revision; New
Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the New Jersey title V Operating Permit Program
requested by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) on May 15, 2015. NJDEP adopted a rule revision on December 29,
2014, to change the fee schedule for certain permitting activities for
major facilities, including application fees for significant
modifications and fees to authorize general operating permit
registration and operation of used oil space heaters. The adopted rule
took effect on February 27, 2015. NJDEP submitted a request to EPA to
incorporate the revised fee schedule into its Operating Permit Program.
EPA proposes to approve the requested change as a revision to the
NJOPP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2015-0837, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suilin Chan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information
by addressing the following items:

I. Background

    EPA granted full approval of the New Jersey title V Operating
Permit Program on December 5, 2001 (66 FR 63168). The New Jersey
Operating Permit Program (NJOPP) is implemented through its Operating
Permits Rule codified at Subchapter 22 of Chapter 27 of Title 7 of the
New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C. 7:27-22). As mandated by title
V of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as well as its implementing regulations
found in part 70 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
part 70), an approved State must establish a fee schedule that results
in the collection and retention of revenues sufficient to cover the
direct and indirect costs of implementing the State's operating permit
program. NJDEP periodically adjusts the title V fee schedule stipulated
at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22 to ensure that the NJOPP is adequately funded by
fees collected from subject sources. EPA's evaluation of New Jersey's
title V fee program during a program audit conducted in 2012 showed
that the fees collected by New Jersey were insufficient to cover the
costs of administering the NJOPP. The NJOPP has a deficit carried over
year after year that accumulated to $7.5 million dollars as of fiscal
year (FY) 2011. As of FY 2014, the cumulative shortfall was over $10
million dollars. New Jersey is required to resolve the funding issue by
taking all necessary actions.

II. Summary of Program Revision

    On December 29, 2014, New Jersey finalized rule revisions to amend
certain fee provisions for major facilities in its Operating Permits
Rule, codified at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22. For significant modifications,
NJDEP charges major facilities base fees for straightforward
applications and adds supplementary fees for more complex applications.
The prior fee schedules for significant modifications were found at
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(r), (s), (v) and (w). These provisions expired on
December 29, 2014 and have now been deleted. New Jersey's revision
replaces these provisions with a new Base Fee Schedule and
Supplementary Fee Schedule for significant modifications, found at
N.J.A.C 7:27-22.31(y) and N.J.A.C 7:27-22.31(z) respectively.
    New Jersey's revision also updated the fee schedule for a major
facility's registration under a General Operating Permit and
authorization to operate a used oil space heater. The prior fee
schedule for these actions was located at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(t) and
(x) and expired on December 29, 2014. New Jersey's revision deletes
those provisions and replaces them with a new fee schedule at N.J.A.C.
7:27-22.31(aa).
    Finally, New Jersey's revision updates other provisions of the
Operating Permits Rule to reflect references to the new fee schedules
rather than the prior now-deleted provisions, including at N.J.A.C.
7:27-22.1 (definition of ``probe'') and N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(a)(6), (e),
(k)(1), (k)(2), (p) and (u)(4), (5), (7), and (9). For details of New
Jersey's revision of its Operating Permits Rule, please refer to the
public docket.
    New Jersey has found that these increases in fees are necessary to
provide additional funding to help reduce the deficit for the NJOPP,
and the rule changes effectuating the increases have undergone the
State's complete rulemaking process. On May 15, 2015, NJDEP submitted a
request that these revisions to its Operating Permits Rule be
incorporated into New Jersey's Operating Permit Program as a program
revision, in accordance with 40 CFR 70.4(i).\1\ This proposed rule
would grant that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the same document, NJDEP submitted rule revisions related
to minor facilities fees found at N.J.A.C. 7:27-8 as a SIP
submittal. This SIP submittal will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The State of New Jersey has adopted rule revisions to increase the
base and supplementary fees for significant modifications at major
facilities, at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(y) and (z), and registration fees
for major facilities' use of General Operating Permits and
authorization to operate used oil space heaters at N.J.A.C. 7:27-
22.31(aa). The rule revisions also deleted outdated fee provisions at
7:27-22.31(r)-(t) and (v)-(x) and updated cross-references found in
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1 (definition of ``probe'') and N.J.A.C. 7:27-
22.31(a)(6), (e), (k)(1), (k)(2), (p) and (u)(4), (5), (7), and (9).
The rule revisions were adopted in accordance with the state's
rulemaking procedures on December 29, 2014. The rule changes are
necessary to increase fee revenues to fund the NJOPP. The requirement
that revenues collected from sources subject to a state's Operating
Permits Program provide funding sufficient to cover the permit
program's costs is mandated by

title V of the CAA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 70.9. In
today's action, pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2), EPA is proposing to
approve NJDEP's May 15, 2015 request to incorporate New Jersey's
Operating Permits Rule (N.J.A.C. 7:27-22) as revised on December 29,
2014 as a revision to New Jersey's Operating Permit Program. EPA is
soliciting public comments on EPA's proposed action to incorporate the
revised rule into the NJOPP. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    This proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It also does not provide EPA
with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act.
    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, requires Federal agencies to
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In
reviewing State Operating Permit Programs submitted pursuant to title V
of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve such regulations provided that
they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations codified at
40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing
requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove such regulations for failure to use
VCS. It would, thus, be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when
it reviews such regulations, to use VCS in place of a State regulation
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply.
    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: June 14, 2016.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2016-15004 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44180]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20162]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9967-63-OA]

Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC); Notice
of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Children's Health Protection
Advisory Committee (CHPAC) is in the public interest and is necessary
in connection with the performance of EPA's duties. Accordingly, CHPAC
will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of CHPAC
is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on
issues associated with development of regulations, guidance and
policies to address children's health risks. Inquiries may be directed
to Angela Hackel, Designated Federal Officer, CHPAC, U.S. EPA, OCHP, MC
1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 31, 2017.
 Ruth Etzel,
Director, Office of Children's Health Protection.
[FR Doc. 2017-20162 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P