[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63185-63190]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26405]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0645; FRL-9935-80-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Phoenix, Arizona; Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Arizona. On March 9, 2005, the EPA redesignated Phoenix,
Arizona from nonattainment to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and approved the State's
plan addressing the area's maintenance of the NAAQS for ten years. On
April 2, 2013, the State of Arizona submitted to the EPA a second
maintenance plan for the Phoenix area that addressed maintenance of the
NAAQS for an additional ten years. The EPA is also proposing to find
adequate and approve a transportation conformity motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEB) for the year 2025 and beyond.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0645, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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. If you need to include CBI as part of your
comment, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for instructions. 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.
    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kelly, Planning Office (Air-2),
Air Division, Region 9, Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials AADT mean or refer to Annual Average Daily
Traffic.
    (iii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer to Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
    (iv) The initials ANP mean or refer to Annual Monitoring Network
Plans, commonly known as Annual Network Plans or ANP.
    (v) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.
    (vi) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (vii) The initials MAG mean or refer to the Maricopa Association of
Governments.

    (viii) The initials MCAQD mean or refer to the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department.
    (ix) The initials MVEB mean or refer to Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budget.
    (x) The initials mtpd mean or refer to metric tons per day.
    (xi) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
    (xii) The initials ppm mean or refer to parts per million.
    (xiii) The initials RTP mean or refer to Regional Transportation
Plan.
    (xiv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (xv) The initials TIP mean or refer to Transportation Improvement
Plan.
    (xvi) The initials TSA mean or refer to an air monitoring program
Technical Systems Audit.
    (xvii) The words Arizona and State mean or refer to the State of
Arizona.

I. Background

A. Phoenix (Maricopa County), Arizona Attainment Status

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix
metropolitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona (hereinafter referred to
as Phoenix, the Phoenix area or the area) was designated and classified
as a moderate CO nonattainment area. On July 29, 1996, the EPA found
that the area had not attained the CO NAAQS by the moderate attainment
date and the area was reclassified to serious nonattainment by
operation of law, effective August 28, 1996. 61 FR 39343.
    The primary CO NAAQS are attained when ambient concentration design
values do not exceed either the 1-hour 35 parts per million (ppm)
standard or the 8-hour 9 ppm standard more than once per year. 40 CFR
50.8(a). There have been no violations in Phoenix of the 1-hour CO
standard since 1984 and no violations of the 8-hour standard since
1996. 2013 Maintenance Plan, page 1-1. The EPA determined in 2003 that
the area had attained the CO NAAQS by the area's December 31, 2000
attainment deadline. 68 FR 55008, September 22, 2003. This
determination did not affect the designation of the area as
nonattainment or its classification as a serious area.
    On May 30, 2003, the State of Arizona submitted a request to the
EPA to redesignate Phoenix from nonattainment to attainment for the CO
NAAQS. Along with this request, the State submitted a CAA section
175A(a) maintenance plan which demonstrated that the area would
maintain the CO NAAQS for the first 10 years following our approval of
the redesignation request (``2003 CO Maintenance Plan''). We approved
the State's redesignation request and 10-year maintenance plan on March
9, 2005, effective April 8, 2005. 70 FR 11553. For a detailed history
of the CO planning efforts in the area up to 2004, please see the
Technical Support Document that accompanied the EPA's proposal to
approve the first 10-year maintenance plan for the area. 69 FR 60328,
October 8, 2004.

B. 2013 CO Maintenance Plan

    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA
section 175A(b) requires the State to submit a subsequent maintenance
plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ The second
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS
during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this requirement of the
CAA, Arizona submitted the second 10-year update of the Phoenix area CO
maintenance plan to the EPA on April 2, 2013. The plan was developed by
the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and is titled ``MAG 2013
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County Area''
(hereinafter, ``2013 Maintenance Plan''). MAG is the State's delegated
Agency with authority to develop SIPs for Maricopa County. With this
action, we are proposing to approve the 2013 Maintenance Plan as a
revision to the Arizona SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended
through 2015. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as meeting the SIP's
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of
violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such
standards. The Act further defines transportation conformity to mean
that no Federal transportation activity will: (1) Cause or contribute
to any new violation of any standard in any area; (2) increase the
frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any
area; or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required
interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The
Federal transportation conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart A, sets
forth the criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects which are
developed, funded or approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and by metropolitan planning organizations or other recipients of
Federal funds under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws. 49
U.S.C. chapter 53.
    The transportation conformity rule applies within all nonattainment
and maintenance areas. As prescribed by the transportation conformity
rule, once an area has an applicable SIP with MVEBs, the expected
emissions from planned transportation activities must be consistent
with such established budgets for that area.
    With this action, the EPA proposes to find adequate and approve a
CO transportation conformity MVEB for the year 2025 and beyond.

II. The EPA's Evaluation of Arizona's Submittal

    The 2013 Maintenance Plan contains the following major sections:
    1. Introduction. This section contains a general discussion of CO
plan approvals and the area's redesignation to attainment. 2013
Maintenance Plan, Chapter 1.
    2. Continued Attainment of the Carbon Monoxide NAAQS. This section
includes some historical background, a description of the CO monitoring
network in Phoenix, monitoring results and the State's demonstration
that the area has continued to attain the CO standards, and information
regarding the State's monitoring data quality assurance program. 2013
Maintenance Plan, Chapter 2.
    3. Maintenance Plan. This section includes control measures,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network information and
verification that the area has continued to attain the CO standards,
contingency provisions, a transportation conformity budget and
subsequent maintenance plan revisions. 2013 Maintenance Plan, Chapter
3.
    The following is the EPA's evaluation of the ambient air monitoring
information and maintenance plan provided in the State's submittal.

A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

    The primary NAAQS for CO are: ``(1) 9 parts per million (10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to
be exceeded more than once per year and (2) 35 parts per million (40
milligrams per cubic meter) for a 1-hour average concentration not to
be exceeded more than once per year.'' 40 CFR 50.8. At the time of
submittal of the 2013 Maintenance Plan in March 2013, there had been no
violations in Phoenix of the 1-hour carbon monoxide

standard since 1984 and no violations of the 8-hour standard since
1996. 2013 Maintenance Plan, page 1-1.

       Table 1--CO Design Values for Phoenix, AZ, Years 2005-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Design values (ppm) \2\
------------------------------------------------------       Years
              1-Hour                      8-Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.0...............................                4.6               2005
6.5...............................                4.6               2006
6.0...............................                4.1               2007
4.5...............................                3.0               2008
4.8...............................                3.3               2009
8.9...............................                3.2               2010
3.9...............................                2.9               2011
4.5...............................                2.5               2012
4.2...............................                2.7               2013
4.9...............................                2.8               2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also examined monitoring data for Phoenix from the entire
period covered by the first maintenance plan. Table 1 shows the
complete, quality assured and certified ambient air monitoring design
values for CO in the area for the years 2005 to 2014. The monitoring
data show the area has not violated the CO standards during the first
maintenance period. The EPA notes the trend of 8-hour CO design values
decreasing during this period, as also described in the 2013
Maintenance Plan for the years 2004 to 2011. 2013 Maintenance Plan,
figure 2-2, page 2-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Design values were derived from the EPA Air Trends (http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html) Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Plan Control Measures

    The State and MAG commit to continue to implement the nine control
measures listed in the 2003 Maintenance Plan, and have implemented a
tenth control measure that had been identified in that plan as a
contingency measure. 2013 Maintenance Plan, page 3-1. Table 2 lists
these control measures. 2013 Maintenance Plan, table 3-1, page 3-2.

       Table 2--Maintenance Measures in the 2013 Maintenance Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline with 3.5% Oxygen Content
 from November 1 through March 31
2. Off-Road Vehicle and Engine Standards
3. Phased-in Emission Test Cutpoints
4. One-Time Waiver from Vehicle Emissions Test
5. Defer Emissions Associated with Government Activities
6. Coordinate Traffic Signal Systems
7. Develop Intelligent Transportation Systems
8. Tougher Enforcement of Vehicle Registration and Emissions Test
 Compliance
9. Clean Burning Fireplace Ordinances
10. Expansion of Area A Boundaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tenth control measure listed in Table 2 is described in the
2003 Maintenance Plan as a contingency measure. 2003 Maintenance Plan,
Exhibit 2, Appendix A, Technical Support Document, Section VII-2-2. The
State has implemented the expansion of Area A boundaries and the EPA
approved the expansion of Area A boundaries as a revision to the
Arizona SIP on May 22, 2013. 78 FR 30209.

C. Emissions Inventories

    The 2013 Maintenance Plan provides a comparison of actual CO
emissions in the Phoenix maintenance area in 2008 with projected
emissions in 2025. 2003 Maintenance Plan, page 3-4, table 3-3. These
emissions are for an average weekday during the winter season, the
months November to January. The 2008 emissions are taken from the
latest periodic emissions inventory for the area, the 2008 periodic
emissions inventory, which is included in Appendix A, Exhibit 1 of the
2013 Maintenance Plan. Emissions for the year 2025 used growth factors
for the area derived from the 2005 special U.S. census conducted in the
area and EPA models for estimating onroad emissions and nonroad
equipment emissions, as well as the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling
System and the Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast
system database for all airports except Luke Air Force Base (AFB).
Emissions of CO from the Luke AFB were derived from two documents: the
first, titled ``2008 Mobile Source Emissions Inventory for Luke Air
Force Base,'' prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc. for the Air Education
and Training Command, U.S. Air Force, Randolph AFB, Texas, in June
2010; the second document is titled ``F-35A Training Basing
Environmental Impact Statement, Final Volume 1,'' prepared by the U.S.
Air Force in 2012.
    Several emissions reductions are credited in the projected
emissions for the year 2025. The first two control measures listed in
Table 2, California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline with 3.5 percent
Oxygen Content from November 1 through March 31, and Off-Road Vehicle
and Engine Standards, are estimated to produce reductions of CO
emissions of 128.9 mtpd and 15 mtpd, respectively. These reductions
represent about a 19 percent reduction of emissions by 2025. The State
and MAG commit to continued implementation of all other control
measures listed in Table 2. However, their collective reduction is
expected to be less than one percent of 2025 emissions, and therefore
no numeric credit was taken for those measures in the State's
projections of CO emissions in 2025.
    Details regarding the technical inputs and assumptions used in
preparing the emissions inventories are provided in Chapter II of the
technical support document for the 2013 Maintenance plan, in Appendix
A, Exhibit 2. The results of MAG's inventory of actual emissions in
2008 and projected emissions in 2025 are provided in Table 3.

   Table 3--Average Weekday Emissions during the Winter Season in the
       Phoenix CO Maintenance Area, in metric tons per day (mtpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   CO Emissions
             Source category             -------------------------------
                                               2008            2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................             0.7            19.8
Area....................................            37.8            47.3
Nonroad.................................           281.5           213.1
Onroad..................................           581.6           359.4
    Total...............................           901.6           639.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compared to emissions in 2008, projected emissions in 2025 show a
downward trend. Total CO emissions projected in the year 2025, 639.6
mtpd, represent approximately 70 percent of the actual emissions in the
year 2008.

D. Maintenance Demonstration

    The 2013 Maintenance Plan relies on a series of technical analyses
to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS through the year 2025. MAG
performed three different modeling analyses to project CO emissions out
to the year 2025 and estimate their impact on maximum ambient CO
concentration. In addition, MAG conducted two weight-of-evidence
evaluations using actual trends in air quality and meteorological data
to reinforce the modeling analyses. MAG also developed a modeling
protocol to detail the technical approaches and assumptions to be used
in demonstrating maintenance of the CO NAAQS. 2013 Maintenance Plan,
Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Technical Support Document.
    MAG's first modeling analysis was based on an emissions inventory
comparison. MAG developed two sets of CO emissions inventories: one
representing the CO modeling domain in 2006, 2008, 2015 and 2025;
another representing the maintenance area in 2008 and 2025. The
modeling domain covers 792 square miles, including the busiest
intersections in the area and the ambient air monitors with the highest
readings, while the maintenance area is 1,814 square miles. MAG
calculated the ratio of the total emissions expected in 2025 to the
total emissions in a prior year (2006 for the modeling domain and 2008
for the maintenance area). MAG then multiplied these ratios by the
maximum concentration in the earlier year to yield a predicted 2025
concentration. The maximum 8-hour CO concentration at West Indian
School monitor in 2006 was 5.3 ppm. When multiplied by the ratio of
2025 emissions for the maintenance area (403.9 mtpd) divided by 2006
emissions (803.0 mtpd) for the maintenance area, or 0.503, the
predicted concentration in 2025 at the West Indian School monitoring
site is 2.7 ppm, well below the 9 ppm level of the 8-hour CO NAAQS.
    MAG's second modeling analysis involved updating the modeling of CO
concentrations performed in the 2003 Maintenance Plan using the EPA-
approved Urban Airshed Model (UAM) and the intersection hotspot model
(CAL3QHC). In particular, MAG updated the projections of concentrations
for the years 2006 and 2015 in the 2003 Maintenance Plan by adjusting
by the ratio of new to old emissions inventory totals and then scaling
them for the year 2025. The highest concentrations in 2025 predicted at
the two busiest intersections in Phoenix (at the Phoenix Grand Avenue
and West Indian School monitors) using these models was 4.0 ppm, less
than half of the level of the 8-hour standard.
    MAG's third modeling approach in the 2013 Maintenance Plan was an
intersection hotspot analysis. The three intersections projected to
have the highest traffic volumes and the three intersections projected
to have the worst traffic congestion were identified using the MAG
TransCAD traffic assignment for the year 2025. MAG used CAL3QHC to
determine the maximum 8-hour concentration at these intersections in
2025, then added the expected background concentration, 1.3 ppm CO. The
highest CO concentration expected in 2025 was 1.7 ppm at two
intersections, 16th Street and Camelback Road, and Priest Drive and
Southern Avenue. This level is also well below the 8-hour CO NAAQS.
    In addition to the above three modeling exercises, MAG conducted
two weight-of-evidence evaluations to support the maintenance
demonstration. In one, historical trends of 1-hour and 8-hour monitored
CO concentrations were applied to a regression analysis to project
concentrations in 2015 and 2025. The monitoring data used was from the
period 1980 to 2011. Projecting forward the trend lines using
regression analysis for each monitoring site, the West Phoenix site has
the highest projected 8-hour CO concentration, 2.7 ppm in 2015 and 1.6
ppm in 2025.
    In a second weight-of-evidence evaluation, MAG conducted a
meteorological analysis to assess whether unusually favorable
meteorology played a role in continued maintenance of the CO standard.
In particular, MAG assessed long-term values of key meteorological
parameters, including temperature, wind speed, wind direction,
atmospheric stability and mixing height and compared these values to CO
monitored concentration trends during the same period. Four
meteorological analyses were performed, comparing later meteorological
data to the data from the 1994 episode used in the evaluation, when
there was an exceedance of the 8-hour CO standard, with the following
results: (1) The maximum 8-hour CO concentrations have continued to
decline, while meteorological conditions have not differed
significantly from the 1994 episode; (2) 8-hour CO concentrations
declined while daily variations in wind speeds, temperatures and mixing
heights have not varied significantly over time; (3) 1-hour CO
concentrations have continued to decrease over time regardless of
meteorological conditions; and (4) daily maximum 8-hour CO
concentrations below the CO NAAQS were predominant during the period
1997 through 2011 under the same range of wind speeds and mixing
heights.
    The EPA finds that the three modeling exercises and two weight-of-
evidence evaluations provide compelling evidence that the Phoenix area
will continue to maintain the CO NAAQS.

E. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network

    The Phoenix area has maintained an ambient air quality monitoring
network consisting of twelve State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS). Of these twelve monitoring stations, 11 are operated by the
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) and one

monitor is operated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ). These agencies provide the EPA with Annual Monitoring Network
Plans (commonly known as Annual Network Plans or ANPs) for the area,
and have committed to continue to operate an appropriate air quality
monitoring network in accordance with appendix D of 40 CFR part 58.
2013 Maintenance Plan, page 3-17.
    The EPA approved the area's ANPs, which describe the monitoring
network for the area and any changes anticipated for the following
year. The most recent ANP from the MCAQD was the ``MCAQD 2013 Final Air
Monitoring Network Review,'' dated December 5, 2014. The most recent
ANP from ADEQ was the ``State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan
for the Year 2014,'' dated July 1, 2014. The 2014 MCAQD ANP was
approved by the EPA on March 31, 2015. Letter from Meredith Kurpius,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, to William Wiley, Director,
MCAQD, dated March 31, 2015. The 2014 ADEQ ANP was approved by the EPA
on October 30, 2014. Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ,
dated October 30, 2014.
    The EPA performs Technical Systems Audits (TSA) of ambient air
monitoring programs in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, section 2.5,
which requires that the EPA conduct TSAs of primary quality assurance
organizations every three years. The most recent TSA for the MCAQD was
conducted by the EPA on September 25 to September 27, 2013. The EPA's
findings from this TSA are presented in a final report. There were no
findings that were cause for data invalidation. Letter from Deborah
Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Phil McNeely,
Director, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, dated December 12,
2014, transmitting ``Technical System Audit, Maricopa County Air
Quality Department, Ambient Air Monitoring Program, September 25-
September 27, 2013,'' dated December 2014.
    The most recent TSA for ADEQ was conducted by the EPA on April 9 to
April 13, 2012. The EPA's findings from this TSA are presented in a
final report. There were no findings that were cause for data
invalidation. Letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA Region 9
Air Division, to Eric Massey, Director, ADEQ Air Division, dated
January 18, 2013, transmitting ``Technical System Audit, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, Ambient Air Monitoring Program,
April 9-April 13, 2012,'' dated January 2013.
    The EPA is confident that the area's air quality monitoring network
is being implemented in accordance with requirements in the CAA and
implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 58.

F. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation of an area. A maintenance plan's
contingency measures are not required to be fully adopted. However, the
plan should contain clearly identified contingency measures to be
adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and
a specific time limit for action by the State. In addition, specific
indicators should be identified which will be used to determine when
the contingency measures need to be implemented. EPA memorandum,
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' September 4, 1992.
    Two contingency measures that were included in the 2003 Maintenance
Plan are included in the 2013 Maintenance Plan: Gross Polluter Option
for I/M Program Waivers, and Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options.
These contingency measures have already been implemented in the area. A
third contingency measure has been added to the 2013 Maintenance Plan:
Reinstatement of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (VEI)
Program for Motorcycles. The VEI program for motorcycles was a control
measure in the area prior to redesignation to attainment, but the State
subsequently exempted motorcycles from the VEI program. Pursuant to
section CAA section 175A(d) of the CAA, the contingency provisions of a
maintenance plan must include all the control measures that were
included in the SIP for the area before redesignation. Therefore, the
State is required to include the VEI program for motorcycles as a
contingency measure in the 2013 CO Maintenance Plan. ADEQ has fulfilled
this requirement by submitting a SIP revision committing to request
Legislative action to reinstate emissions testing for motorcycles in
the Phoenix area should the area experience a violation of the CO
standards. See 78 FR 30209, May 22, 2013. In addition, as noted above,
the State has expanded Area A in Maricopa County, which extends
additional controls beyond the previous boundary for Area A, converting
this expansion from a contingency measure in the 2003 Maintenance Plan,
to a control measure in the 2013 Maintenance Plan.
    We propose to find that the contingency plan in the 2013
Maintenance Plan is sufficient to meet the requirements of section
175A(d) of the CAA.

G. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA section 176(c)(1)(B)). The
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are consistent with MVEBs contained in the control strategy SIP
revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An
MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant
relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or
maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance
area.\3\ The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists
of three basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy. See 40 CR 93.118(f). The 2003 Maintenance Plan established
CO MVEBs (calculated for Friday in December) of 699.7 mtpd in 2006 and
662.9 mtpd in 2015. The EPA found the CO MVEBs adequate for
transportation conformity purposes on September 29, 2003, 68 FR 55950,
and approved the MVEBs on March 9, 2005, 70 FR 11553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Maintenance Plan establishes a 2025 MVEB of 559.4 mtpd for
the CO maintenance area. We are not announcing the availability of this
MVEB through the EPA's Adequacy Web site and providing a separate
comment period on the adequacy of the

MVEB. Instead, we are reviewing the adequacy of the MVEB simultaneously
with our review of the 2013 Maintenance Plan itself. See 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2). In order to determine whether this MVEB is adequate and
approvable, we have evaluated whether the MVEB meets the conformity
adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The details of the
EPA's evaluation of the MVEB for compliance with the budget adequacy
criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) are provided in a memo to file for this
proposed rulemaking. Memo from John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office, EPA
Region 9, to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0645, dated September 29, 2015.
Based on this evaluation, we propose to find the 2025 MVEB adequate and
to approve it. Any and all comments on the adequacy and approvability
of the 2025 MVEB should be submitted during the comment period stated
in the DATES section of this document.
    If today's proposed action is finalized, the 2015 MVEB, which is
already approved for 2015 and later years, would apply only up to the
year 2024. For the year 2025 and later years, the budget will be 559.4
mtpd. See Table 4.

   Table 4--Approved and Proposed Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Phoenix CO
                                 Maintenance Area, in metric tons per day (mtpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Approved        Approved        Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                     2006            2015            2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO MVEB.........................................................           699.7           662.9           559.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the 2013 Maintenance Plan submitted
on April 3, 2012. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA
requirements and the EPA has determined it is sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year
maintenance period out to 2025.
    The EPA is also proposing to find adequate and approve the CO MVEB
of 559.4 mtpd for use in the year 2025 and later years.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2015-26405 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9050-9053]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04210]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82774; File No. SR-FINRA-2018-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Private Securities Offerings
Representative (Series 82) Examination

February 26, 2018.
    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 February 12, 2018, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as ``constituting a stated policy,
practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule'' under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \3\ and

Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing revisions to the content outline and selection
specifications for the Private Securities Offerings Representative
(Series 82) examination as part of the restructuring of the
representative-level examination program.\5\ The proposed revisions
also update the material to reflect changes to the laws, rules and
regulations covered by the examination and to incorporate the functions
and associated tasks currently performed by a Private Securities
Offerings Representative. In addition, FINRA is proposing to make
changes to the format of the content outline. FINRA is not proposing
any textual changes to the By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws or Rules
of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA also is proposing corresponding revisions to the
Series 82 question bank. Based on instruction from SEC staff, FINRA
is submitting this filing for immediate effectiveness pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and
is not filing the question bank. See Letter to Alden S. Adkins,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, from
Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation,
SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is available for SEC
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised Series 82 content outline is attached.\6\ The revised
Series 82 selection specifications have been submitted to the
Commission under separate cover with a request for confidential
treatment pursuant to SEA Rule 24b-2.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission notes that the content outline is attached to
the filing, not to this Notice.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room. [sic]

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act \8\ authorizes FINRA to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members. In accordance with that provision, FINRA
has developed examinations that are designed to establish that persons
associated with FINRA members have attained specified levels of
competence and knowledge, consistent with applicable registration
requirements under FINRA rules. FINRA periodically reviews the content
of the examinations to determine whether revisions are necessary or
appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject matter covered
by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC recently approved a proposed rule change to restructure the
FINRA representative-level qualification examination program.\9\ The
rule change, which will become effective on October 1, 2018,\10\
restructures the examination program into a new format whereby all new
representative-level applicants will be required to take a general
knowledge examination (the Securities Industry Essentials or
SIETM) and a tailored, specialized knowledge examination (a
revised representative-level qualification examination) for their
particular registered role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81098 (July 7,
2017), 82 FR 32419 (July 13, 2017) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2017-007).
    \10\ See Regulatory Notice 17-30 (SEC Approves Consolidated
FINRA Registration Rules, Restructured Representative-Level
Qualification Examinations and Changes to Continuing Education
Requirements) (October 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The restructured program eliminates duplicative testing of general
securities knowledge on the current representative-level qualification
examinations by moving such content into the SIE examination.\11\ The
SIE examination will test fundamental securities-related knowledge,
including knowledge of basic products, the structure and function of
the securities industry, the regulatory agencies and their functions
and regulated and prohibited practices, whereas the revised
representative-level qualification examinations will test knowledge
relevant to day-to-day activities, responsibilities and job functions
of representatives.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Each of the current representative-level examinations
covers general securities knowledge, with the exception of the
Research Analyst (Series 86 and 87) examinations.
    \12\ FINRA filed the SIE content outline with the SEC for
immediate effectiveness. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
82578 (January 24, 2018), 83 FR 4375 (January 30, 2018) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2018-002).
In addition to the proposed rule change relating to the revised
Series 82 examination, FINRA is filing with the Commission for
immediate effectiveness the content outlines for the other revised
representative-level qualification examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the restructuring process and in consultation with a
committee of industry representatives, FINRA undertook a review of the
Private Securities Offerings Representative (Series 82) examination to
remove the general securities knowledge currently covered on the
examination and to create a tailored examination to test knowledge
relevant to the day-to-day activities, responsibilities and job
functions of a Private Securities Offerings Representative. As a result
of this review, FINRA also is proposing to revise the Series 82 content
outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered
by the examination and to incorporate the functions and associated
tasks currently performed by a Private Securities Offerings
Representative. The proposed change will align the organization of the
Series 82 content outline with the organization of the content outlines
of the other revised representative-level examinations.\13\ In
addition, FINRA is proposing to make other changes to the format of the
Series 82 content outline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FINRA currently has organized several FINRA qualification
examinations, such as the Securities Trader (Series 57) examination,
based on the functions that are performed by the respective
registered persons and the associated tasks. FINRA is proposing
similar layouts for all of the representative-level examinations,
including the Series 82 examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning on October 1, 2018, new applicants seeking to register as
Private Securities Offerings Representatives must pass the SIE
examination and the revised Private Securities Offerings Representative
(Series 82) examination.
Current Content Outline
    The current Series 82 content outline is divided into four
sections. The following are the four sections, denoted Section 1
through Section 4, with the associated number of questions:
    1. Characteristics of Corporate Securities, 13 questions;
    2. Regulation of The Market for Registered and Unregistered
Securities, 45 questions;
    3. Analyzing Corporate Securities and Investment Planning, 16
questions; and

    4. Handling Customer Accounts and Industry Regulations, 26
questions.
    In addition, each section includes references to the applicable
laws, rules and regulations associated with that section. The current
content outline also includes a preface (addressing, among other
things, the purpose, administration and scoring of the examination),
sample questions and reference materials.
Revised Content Outline
    As noted above, FINRA is proposing to move the general securities
knowledge currently covered on the Series 82 examination to the SIE
examination. For example, FINRA Rule 3220 (Influencing or Rewarding
Employees of Others) (the Gifts Rule) will now be tested on the SIE
examination, rather than on the Series 82 examination. As a result, the
revised Series 82 examination will test knowledge specific to the day-
to-day activities, responsibilities and job functions of a Private
Securities Offerings Representative.
    Further, FINRA is proposing to reorganize the content outline by
dividing it into four major job functions that are performed by a
Private Securities Offerings Representative. The proposed change aligns
the major job functions performed by a Private Securities Offerings
Representative with the major job functions performed by other sales
representatives, including Investment Company and Variable Contracts
Products Representatives, General Securities Representatives and Direct
Participation Programs Representatives. The following are the four
major job functions, denoted Function 1 through Function 4, with the
associated number of questions:
    Function 1: Seeks Business for the Broker-Dealer from Customers and
Potential Customers, 25 questions;
    Function 2: Opens Accounts After Obtaining and Evaluating
Customers' Financial Profile and Investment Objectives, 9 questions;
    Function 3: Provides Customers with Information About Investments,
Makes Suitable Recommendations, Transfers Assets and Maintains
Appropriate Records, 13 questions; and
    Function 4: Obtains and Verifies Customers' Purchase Instructions
and Agreements; Processes, Completes and Confirms Transactions, 3
questions.
    FINRA also is proposing to adjust the number of questions assigned
to each major job function to ensure that the overall examination
better reflects the key tasks performed by a Private Securities
Offerings Representative. The questions on the revised Series 82
examination will place emphasis on tasks such as seeking business for
the broker-dealer from customers and potential customers, opening
customer accounts, providing customers with suitable recommendations
and verifying customer agreements and transactions.
    Each function also includes specific tasks describing activities
associated with performing that function. There are two tasks (1.1-1.2)
associated with Function 1; \14\ four tasks (2.1-2.4) associated with
Function 2; \15\ four tasks (3.1-3.4) associated with Function 3; \16\
and two tasks (4.1-4.2) associated with Function 4.\17\ For example,
one such task (Task 1.1) is contacting current and potential customers
in person and by telephone, mail and electronic means, developing
promotional and advertising materials and seeking appropriate approvals
to distribute marketing materials.\18\ The content outline also lists
the knowledge required to perform each function and associated tasks
(e.g., standards and required approvals of communications). In
addition, where applicable, the content outline lists the laws, rules
and regulations a candidate is expected to know to perform each
function and associated tasks (e.g., FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Pages 3-4. The outline is attached
as Exhibit 3a to the 19b-4 form.
    \15\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Pages 5-6.
    \16\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Pages 7-8.
    \17\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 9.
    \18\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also is proposing to revise the content outline to reflect
changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination.
Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise the content outline
to reflect the adoption of new FINRA rules (e.g., FINRA Rule 2273
(Educational Communication Related to Recruitment Practices and Account
Transfers)).
    FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 82 selection
specifications and question bank.
    Finally, FINRA is proposing to make other changes to the format of
the content outline, including to the preface, sample questions and
reference materials.\19\ Among other changes, FINRA is proposing to:
(1) Reduce the preface to one page of introductory information; (2)
streamline details regarding the purpose of the examination; (3) move
the application procedures to FINRA's website; and (4) explain that the
passing score is established using a standard setting procedure, and
that a statistical adjustment process known as equating is used in
scoring the examination.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FINRA is proposing similar changes to the content outlines
for other representative-level examinations.
    \20\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the proposed changes, the number of scored questions
on the Series 82 examination will be reduced from 100 questions to 50
questions.\21\ Further, the test time, which is the amount of time
candidates will have to complete the examination, will be reduced from
two hours and 30 minutes to one hour and 30 minutes. Currently, a score
of 70 percent is required to pass the examination. FINRA will publish
the passing score of the revised Series 82 examination on its website,
at www.finra.org, prior to its first administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Consistent with FINRA's practice of including ``pretest''
questions on examinations, the Series 82 examination includes five
additional, unidentified pretest questions that do not contribute
towards the candidate's score. The pretest questions are designed to
ensure that new examination questions meet acceptable testing
standards prior to use for scoring purposes. Therefore, the Series
82 examination actually consists of 55 questions, 50 of which are
scored. The five pretest questions are randomly distributed
throughout the examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Availability of Content Outline
    The current Series 82 content outline is available on FINRA's
website. The revised Series 82 content outline will replace the current
content outline on FINRA's website, and it will be made available on
the website on the date of this filing.
    FINRA is filing the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date will be October 1, 2018, to
coincide with the implementation of the restructured representative-
level examination program. FINRA will also announce the implementation
date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 82
examination program are consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act,\22\ which requires, among other things, that
FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\23\ which authorizes FINRA to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members. The proposed rule change will improve
the examination program, without compromising the qualification
standards, by removing the general

knowledge content currently covered on the Series 82 examination, since
that content will be covered in the co-requisite SIE examination. In
addition, the proposed revisions will further the purposes of the Act
by updating the examination program to reflect changes to the laws,
rules and regulations covered by the examination and to incorporate the
functions and associated tasks currently performed by a Private
Securities Offerings Representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The updated examination aligns
with the functions and associated tasks currently performed by a
Private Securities Offerings Representative and tests knowledge of the
most current laws, rules, regulations and skills relevant to those
functions and associated tasks. As such, the proposed revisions would
make the examination more effective. FINRA also provided a detailed
economic impact assessment regarding the introduction of the SIE
examination and the restructuring of the representative-level
examinations as part of the proposed rule change to restructure the
FINRA representative-level qualification examination program.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80371 (April 4,
2017), 82 FR 17336 (April 10, 2017) (Notice of Filing of File No.
SR-FINRA-2017-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\26\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-FINRA-2018-011 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-FINRA-2018-011. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be
posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that
we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
FINRA-2018-011 and should be submitted on or before March 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04210 Filed 3-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 66829]
[DOCID:fr03no05-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-683-000]

Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Withdrawal

October 25, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 20, 2005, Trans-Union Interstate
Pipeline, L.P. tendered for filing a withdrawal of the rate filing
submitted September 30, 2005.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. On or before
the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

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

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 2, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6061 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30969]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0438]

Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port
Buffalo Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Sheffield
Lake Fireworks, on Lake Erie and the Sheffield Lake boat ramp from 9:30
p.m. through 11 p.m. on Friday, July 14, 2017. This action is necessary
to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters
during this event. Our regulation for Annual Fireworks Events in the
Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone identifies the safety zone for this
event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the
respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the
Port Buffalo.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(27) will be enforced from
9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email LT Ryan Junod, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following event:
    Sheffield Lake Fireworks, Sheffield Lake, OH: The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(27) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through
11 p.m. on July 14, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all navigable
waters of Lake Erie and Sheffield Lake Boat ramp within a 350 foot
radius of land position 41[deg]29'27.65'' N., 082[deg]6'47.71'' W. (NAD
83) at Sheffield Lake Boat Ramp in Sheffield Lake, OH. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable
waters during this event. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into,
transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an
enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking
permission to enter one of these safety zones may request permission
from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and
persons granted permission to enter this safety zone shall obey the
directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated
representative. While within the safety zone, all vessels shall operate
at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of these enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port
Buffalo determines that this safety zone need not be enforced for the
full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective
safety zone.

    Dated: June 27, 2017.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-14034 Filed 7-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70856-70857]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28861]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76392; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Rule 521

November 9, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on November 4, 2015, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 521, Nullification
and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors, to
modify the amount to be charged to Members that appeal an Official
ruling when the ruling is sustained and not overturned or modified, and
to pass through other market center charges associated with obvious
error determinations.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
    On May 7, 2015 the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to replace
Exchange Rule 521 entitled ``Obvious and Catastrophic Errors'' with new
Exchange Rule 521 entitled ``Nullification and Adjustment of Options
Transactions Including Obvious Errors.'' Rule 521 became operative on
May 8, 2015.\3\ Rule 521 was amended in conjunction with amendments
made by all U.S. options exchanges in order to harmonize their
respective rules related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that Rule 521,
together with comparable harmonized rules of the other U.S. options
exchanges,\4\ provides transparency and finality with respect to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions,
achieving consistent results for participants across the options
exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting
investors and protecting the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74918 (May 8, 2015),
80 FR 27781 (May 14, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-35).
    \4\ See, e.g., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule 1092(l) and
BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rule 20.6. See also, e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 74556 (March 20, 2015), 80 FR 16031 (March
26, 2015) (SR-BATS-2014-067), and 75488 (July 20, 2015), 80 FR 44164
(July 24, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to further harmonize
Rule 521 with the rules of other exchanges by modifying the amount to
be charged to Members that appeal an Official ruling under Rule 521 if
such ruling is sustained and not overturned or modified, and to permit
the Exchange to pass along charges assessed by another market center in
connection with Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error determination
requests presented to that market center by the Exchange on a Member's
behalf.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section (l)(2) of the Rule to charge
$500.00 to MIAX Members that appeal an Official ruling when such ruling
is sustained and not overturned or modified, and to add new language to
permit the Exchange to pass along charges assessed by another market
center in connection with Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error
determination requests presented to that market center by the Exchange
on a Member's behalf. Currently, the Exchange charges Members $250.00
in this circumstance. The Exchange proposes to increase this charge
from $250.00 to $500.00.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Rule 521 is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that
it provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other
charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The $500.00 charge and the provision to pass through charges from
other market centers proposed herein is just and equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all MIAX
Members seeking review on appeal of Official rulings pursuant to Rule
521(l), and will not be assessed if the ruling giving rise to the
appeal is modified or reversed. The $500.00 charge is consistent with
the amount charged by other U.S. options exchanges for unsuccessful
appeals under their obvious error rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provision to pass through charges from other market centers
proposed herein is just and equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would apply equally to all MIAX Members requesting Obvious
Error or Catastrophic Error determinations from other market centers
through the Exchange. The pass through charge is also consistent with
pass through charges charged by other U.S. options exchanges under
their obvious error rules.\8\ The Exchange believes that it will
prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system
by discouraging frivolous appeals of Official rulings made under Rule
521. Further, it will allow the Exchange to recoup its administrative
costs associated with Rule 521 appeals, and provide additional
resources to the Exchange to administer its regulatory functions,
including appeals of Official rulings under Rule 521(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

competition in that the $500.00 charge and the provision of pass
through charges from other market centers proposed herein will apply
equally to all MIAX Members submitting appeals pursuant to Rule 521(l).

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \10\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2015-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-62. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-62, and should be
submitted on or before December 7, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28861 Filed 11-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26321]
[DOCID:fr11my10-152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventeenth Plenary Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 203: Unmanned
Aircraft Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 203: Unmanned Aircraft
Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 203: Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 8-10, 2010 at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Willie Miller Instructional
Center, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 600 S. Clyde Morris
Blvd., Daytona Beach, FL 32124-3900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 203: Unmanned Aircraft Systems
meeting. The agenda will include:

Tuesday, June 8

 9 a.m.--Opening Plenary
 Introductory Remarks and Introductions
 Leadership Updates
 FAA Status Reports
 Workgroup reorganization
 TOR Update--Discussion on Changes
 RTCA Workspace Web Tool
 Special Committee Status Overview
 Workgroup Updates
 WG1--Systems Engineering
 WG2--Control and Communications
 WG3--Sense and Avoid
 WG4--Safety
 Close Plenary
 Breakout sessions-Remainder of June 8, 2010; June 9--10, 2010
 June 10, 2010 will conclude with Work Group briefings

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2010.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-11222 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49002-49003]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0770]

Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) will meet on
September 19 and 20, 2012. On September 19, the committee will meet to
discuss administrative matters and then recess for the separate but
concurrent meetings of the four subcommittees, ``Recommendations for
the Prevention of Towing Vessel Crewmember Falls Overboard'', ``Review
and recommendations for the revision of NVIC 1-95, Voluntary Training
Standards for Entry-Level Personnel on Towing Industry Vessels'',
``Recommendations for the Enhancement of Towing Vessel Stability'' and
``Recommendations for Safety Standards of Portable Facility Vapor
Control Systems Used for Marine Operations.'' The committee will
reconvene on September 20, 2012. The meetings of the TSAC on both days
and the meeting of the subcommittees are open to the public.

DATES: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to noon, the
TSAC will meet to discuss administrative matters, and from 1:30 to 5
p.m. the four subcommittees identified in the ``Agenda'' will meet. On
Thursday, September 20, 2012, the TSAC will meet from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Please note that these meetings may close early if the committee
has completed its business. Oral comments may be made at the September
20 meeting. Written comments must be submitted no later than September
10, 2012 by using one of the methods listed below.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Federal Center South GSA
Facility, 4735 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98134.
    If you are planning to attend the meeting, you will be required to
pass through a security checkpoint. You will be required to show state-
issued photo identification. Please arrive at least 30 minutes before
the planned start of the meeting in order to pass through security.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section,
as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. Written comments must be identified by Docket
No. USCG-2012-0770 and submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590- 0001. We encourage use of
electronic submissions because security screening may delay the
delivery of mail.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
methods. Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number of this
action. All comments submitted will be posted on www.regulations.gov
without alteration and will contain any personal information you
provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public
dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR
3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert USCG-
2012-0770 in the Keyword ID box, press Enter, and then click on the
item you are interested in viewing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Rob Smith, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) or Mr. Patrick Mannion, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer (ADFO), TSAC; U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, CG-OES-2,
Vessel and Facilities Operating Standards Division; telephone (202)
372-1439, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
This Committee is established in accordance with and operates under the
provisions of the FACA. The Towing Safety Advisory Committee provides
advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on
matters relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway
navigation and towing safety. See 33 U.S.C. 1231a.

Agenda

    On September 19, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to noon, the TSAC will meet
to discuss administrative matters such as logistical support and review
the committee charter and bylaws. The TSAC will recess at noon and
starting at 1:30 p.m. the following four subcommittees will convene to
discuss work remaining on their open task statements. These
subcommittees will conclude their meetings at 5 p.m.
     Recommendations for the Prevention of Towing Vessel
Crewmember Falls Overboard.
     Review and recommendations for the revision of NVIC 1-95,
Voluntary Training Standards for Entry-Level Personnel on Towing
Industry Vessels.
     Recommendations for the Enhancement of Towing Vessel
Stability.
     Recommendations for Safety Standards of Portable Facility
Vapor

Control Systems Used for Marine Operations.
    On September 20, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., the TSAC will reconvene. The
committee will review and discuss the four open Task Statements
currently before the committee. The TSAC will receive briefings from
the Task Statement subcommittees to inform the TSAC of their work, to
review and discuss the research, and to determine the disposition of
the Task Statements. Presentations and discussions will include the
following subjects:
     Presentation from the Towing Vessel Stability Casualty
Data subcommittee and discussion of the task ``Towing Vessel
Stability;''
     Presentation from the Towing Vessel Crewmember
Competencies subcommittee and discussion of the task Towing Vessel
Crewmember Competencies;
     Presentation from the Falls Overboard subcommittee and
discussion of the task ``Prevention of Falls Overboard, Towing
Vessels;''
     Presentation on Task Statement ``Recommendations for
Safety Standards of Portable Facility Vapor Control Systems Used for
Marine Operations.''
     Presentation of Coast Guard initiative for use of
automated identification systems for towing vessels during tow
reconfiguration;
     Presentation of potential Task Statement ``Recommendations
to Improve Operational, Structural or Other Standards to Enhance Fire
Prevention and Containment Aboard Towing Vessels.''
     Presentation of potential Task Statement ``Recommendations
for Inspected Towing Vessel Manning Scales for Both Domestic and
International Operations'';
     Report from the Supervisor, Towing Vessel National Center
of Expertise.

Public Comment Period

    An opportunity for oral comments by the public will be provided
during the meeting on September 20, 2012, as the final agenda item.
Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Please
note that the public oral comment period may end before 4:30 p.m. if
all of those wishing to comment have done so.

Minutes

    Minutes from the meeting will be available for the public review
and copying within 30 days following the close of the meeting and can
be accessed from the Coast Guard Homeport Web site http://homeport.uscg.mil; select these options: Mission>Port and
Waterways>Safety Advisory Committees>TSAC>Meetings/Minutes or>Task
Statements or the online docket for this notice.

    Dated: August 7, 2012.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2012-20000 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 24096]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-119-000]

Tucson Electric Power Company; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 14, 2018, Tucson Electric Power Company
(Tucson Electric) submitted a response to the March 15, 2018 Show Cause
Order.\1\ Also, on May 15, 2018 Tucson Electric submit an errata to the
May 14, 2018 response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alcoa Power Generation, Inc.--Long Sault Division, et al.,
162 FERC ] 61,224 (2018) (Show Cause Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 4, 2018.

    Dated: May 18, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11165 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 52965-52967]
[DOCID:fr15oc09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0483]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3601

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on Form FDA 3601 entitled
``Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet,'' which must be submitted along
with certain medical device product applications, supplements, and fee
payment of those applications.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by December 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley Jr., Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3601 (OMB Control Number
0910-0511)-Extension

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), as amended by
the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-250), and the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2007 (Title II
of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007), authorizes
FDA to collect user fees for certain medical device applications. Under
this authority, companies pay a fee for certain new medical device
applications or supplements submitted to the agency for review. Because
the submission of user fees concurrently with applications and
supplements is required, the review of an application cannot begin
until the fee is submitted. Form FDA 3601, the ``Medical Device User
Fee Cover Sheet,'' is designed to provide the minimum necessary
information to determine whether a fee is required for review of an
application, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to
account for and track user fees. The form provides a cross-reference
between the fees submitted for an application with the actual submitted
application by using a unique number tracking system. The information
collected is used by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health
(CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to
initiate the administrative screening of new medical device
applications and supplemental applications.
    The total number of annual responses is based on the number of
cover sheet submissions received by FDA in fiscal year (FY) 2008. CDRH
received approximately 5,095 annual responses that included the
following submissions: 16 premarket approval applications (PMA) (PMA,
PDP, PMR, BLA),\1\ 3,625 premarket notifications, 8 modular premarket
applications, 9 panel track supplements, 201 real-time supplements, 173
one hundred eighty-day supplements, 633 thirty-day notices, ninety-
three 513(g) requests, and 337 annual fees for periodic reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PDP means product development protocol; PMR means
postmarketing requirements; and BLA means biologics license
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBER received approximately 97 annual responses that included the
following submissions: 2 premarket approval applications (PMA, PDP,
PMR, BLA), 1 BLA efficacy supplement, 50 premarket notifications, 3 one
hundred eighty-day supplements, 2 real-time supplements, 20 thirty-day
notices, 3hree 513(g) requests, and 16 annual fees for periodic
reporting.
    The number of received annual responses in FY 2008 included the
cover sheets for applications that were qualified for small businesses
and fee waivers or reductions. The estimated hours per response are
based on past FDA experience with the various cover sheet submissions,
and range from 5 to 30 minutes. The hours per response are based on the
average of these estimates. FDA estimates the burden of this collection
of information as follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         No. of        Annual Frequency     Total Annual        Hours per
   Form FDA No.       Respondents        per Response        Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3601                           5,192                  1              5,192                .30            1,557.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hours                                                                                1,557.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: October 7, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-24825 Filed 10-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S