[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8645-8647]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04391]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0720; FRL-9990-66-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2)
for the 2010 1-Hour NO2 Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(Georgia EPD), through a letter dated July 24, 2018, for the purpose of
addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) ``good neighbor'' interstate
transport (prongs 1 and 2) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2010
1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.''
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's July 24, 2018, SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 to ensure that air emissions in the
State do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other
state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0720 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Adams can be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations.\1\ See 75 FR 6474 (February 9,
2010). This NAAQS is designed to protect against exposure to the entire
group of nitrogen oxides (NOX). NO2 is the
component of greatest concern and is used as the indicator for the
larger group of NOX. Emissions that lead to the formation of
NO2 generally also lead to the formation of other
NOX. Therefore, control measures that reduce NO2
can generally be expected to reduce population exposures to all gaseous
NOX which may have the co-benefit of reducing the formation
of ozone and fine particles both of which pose

significant public health threats. For comprehensive information on the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, please refer to the February 9, 2010
Federal Register notice. See 75 FR 6474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subsequently, after careful consideration of the scientific
evidence and information available, on April 18, 2018, EPA published
a final action to retain the current NO2 standard at the
2010 level of 100 ppb. This action was taken after review of the
full body of available scientific evidence and information, giving
particular weight to the assessment of the evidence in the 2016
NOX Integrated Science Assessment; analyses and
considerations in the Policy Assessment; the advice and
recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and
public comments. See 83 FR 17226 (April 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.\2\ This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it
is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of
acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided
comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a
guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through
regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\3\ Unless otherwise
noted below, EPA is following that existing approach in acting on this
submission. In addition, in the context of acting on such
infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's
implementation plan for compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, not for the state's implementation of its SIP.\4\ EPA has
other authority to address any issues concerning a state's
implementation of the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that
comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIPs for the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22,
2013.
    \3\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior
action on Georgia's infrastructure SIP to address other 110(a)(2)
elements for the NO2 NAAQS entitled ``Air Plan Approval;
GA Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards;'' in the section ``What is
the EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?'' See 81 FR 41905 at 41906-41909 (June 28, 2017).
    \4\ See Montana Environmental Information Center v. Thomas, 902
F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIPs. The first two prongs, which are codified in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1)
and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(prong 2). EPA sometimes refers to the prong 1 and prong 2 conjointly
as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA. The third and fourth
prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (prong 3) and from interfering with
measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
    EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13,
2013, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did
not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\5\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as
ozone and particulate matter (PM), EPA has addressed interstate
transport in eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking
actions that quantify state emission reduction obligations.\6\ For
NO2, EPA has considered available information from states
such as current air quality, emissions data and trends, and regulatory
provisions that control source emissions to determine whether emissions
from one state interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state. EPA's review and proposed action on Georgia's
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport SIP revision for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS is informed by these considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ At the time the September 13, 2013, guidance was issued, EPA
was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), designed to
address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7. EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As
EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP guidance was
issued, EPA did not issue guidance specific to that provision. The
Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and
remanded the case to that court for further review. 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for reconsideration.
795 F.3d 118.
    \6\ Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) SIP Call, 63 FR 57371
(October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172
(May 12, 2005); CSAPR, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
July 24, 2018, SIP revision addressing the prong 1 and prong 2
requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.\7\ The State
addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by providing information
supporting its conclusion that emissions from Georgia do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for Georgia for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS have been addressed in separate rulemakings. See
80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015), 81 FR 63106 (September 14, 2016), and 83
FR 19637 (May 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA received this SIP revision on August 2, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed prongs 1 and 2?

    In Georgia's July 24, 2018, SIP revision, the State concluded that
its SIP adequately addresses prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS. Georgia provides the following reasons for
its determination: (1) There are SIP-approved and state-only
regulations that directly or indirectly control NOx emissions; (2) all
areas in the United States are designated as unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS; (3) monitored 1-hour
NO2 design values in Georgia and surrounding states
(Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) are
below the 2010 standard; \8\ and (4) point source emissions of NOx in
the State have trended downward. EPA preliminarily agrees with the
State's conclusion based on the rationale discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality
status of a given area relative to the level of the NAAQS. The
design value for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is the 3-year
average of annual 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hour values for a
monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, Georgia identifies SIP-approved portions of the following
State rules that directly or indirectly control NOX
emissions: Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.03--Permits;
391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 391-3-
1-.02(2)(yy)--Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Major Sources; 391-3-
1-.02(2)(jjj)--NOX Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units; 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll)--NOX Emissions From Fuel Burning Equipment;
391-3-1-

.02(2)(rrr)--NOX Emissions From Small Fuel-Burning Equipment; and 391-
3-20--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance. In addition to the SIP-
approved rules mentioned above, Georgia also identifies Rule 391-3-
1-.02(sss)--Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units, a rule that is not incorporated into the SIP, as a
measure that targets NOX emissions.
    Second, there are no designated nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS nationwide. On February 17, 2012 (77 FR
9532), EPA designated the entire country as ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, stating that
``available information does not indicate that the air quality in these
areas exceeds the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.''
    Third, the 2015-2017 NO2 design values in Georgia are
below the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS standard of 100 ppb. The
highest monitored design value in the State is 56 ppb, which is 44
percent below the standard. Additionally, the highest monitored 2015-
2017 valid design values for the neighboring states of Florida, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee are below the 2010 standard (at
42, 38, 42, and 53 ppb, respectively).\9\ EPA notes that the trends in
NO2 design values for the southeast indicate a 42 percent
decrease in measured NO2 concentrations from 2000-2017.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Monitoring sites must meet the data completeness
requirements listed in Appendix S to 40 CFR part 50 in order to have
a valid design value. Table 2 in Georgia's submittal and EPA's air
quality design value website--https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values--indicate that the highest reported 2015-2017
NO2 design values are invalid for the neighboring states
of Alabama, Florida, and North Carolina (49, 45, and 39 ppb,
respectively). Additionally, Alabama has no valid 2015-2017
NO2 design values.
    \10\ National Trends in Nitrogen Dioxide Levels for the
southeast are available on the EPA's air trends website at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogen-dioxide-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, emissions data provided in the SIP submittal show that
NOx emissions decreased from 1990 to 2017 by approximately
58 percent. In 2017, highway vehicles were the largest contributors
with 153,635 tons per year (tpy), and off-highway vehicles were second
with 56,872 tpy.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Figure 1 and Table 3 in Georgia's submittal, which is
based on emissions trends data extracted from the EPA website at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pullutants-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all the reasons discussed above, EPA has preliminarily
determined that Georgia does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS in any other state and that Georgia's SIP includes
adequate provisions to prevent emissions sources within the State from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of this standard in any other state.

III. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's July 24,
2018, SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: February 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-04391 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69803-69805]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0848]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Venice, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that
governs the Hatchett Creek (US-41) Twin Bridges, Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway mile 56.9, Venice, FL. Changing the operational scheduled of
the Hatchett Creek (US-41) Twin Bridges will allow the Iron Man
Triathlon event to be unimpeded for an eight hour period. This event is
anticipated to be scheduled on the second Sunday of November annually
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0848 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ms. Danielle Mauser, Seventh Coast Guard District,
Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted, without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
proposed rulemaking (USCG-2013-0848), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0848 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0848 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the three methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The current operating regulation governing the Hatchett Creek (US-
41) bridges, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 56.9 at Venice, FL as
listed in Sec.  117.287(b), provides the draw of the Hatchett Creek
(US-41) bridge, mile 56.9 at Venice, shall open on signal, except that,
from 7 a.m. to 4:20 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal
holidays, the draw need open only on the hour, 20 minutes after the
hour, and 40 minutes after the hour and except between 4:25 p.m. and
5:25 p.m. when the draw need not open. On Saturdays, Sundays, and
Federal holidays from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. the draw need open only on
the hour, quarter-hour, half-hour, and three quarter-hour.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The proposed changes will have a minor impact on vessels transiting
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Venice, Florida and
will still meet the reasonable needs to navigation. This action will
accommodate the Sarasota Iron Man Triathlon held annually on the second
Sunday of November.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule will allow the Hatchett Creek Bridge to remain
closed to navigation for eight hours once a year for an annual event.
The Hatchett Creek (US-41) Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 16
feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal
clearance of 90 feet. Vessels with a height of less than 16 feet may
pass through the bridge at any time. The Gulf of Mexico is the only
alternative route and this route would be unacceptable for certain
classes of vessels such as tugs and barges.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    This action will have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Venice, Florida and will still
meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
needing the draw to open for safe transit under the bridge from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. on the second Sunday of November each year.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for eight hours annually. Vessels that can
safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time. Before the
effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely
available to users of the river.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security

Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates
the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.287, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.287  Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the Hatchett Creek (U.S.-41) bridge, mile 56.9 at
Venice, shall open on signal, except that, from 7 a.m. to 4:20 p.m.,
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need open only
on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour
and except between 4:25 p.m. and 5:25 p.m. when the draw need not open.
On Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
the draw need open only on the hour, quarter-hour, half-hour, and three
quarter-hour. This bridge need not open to navigation on the second
Sunday of November annually from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to facilitate the
Iron Man Triathlon event.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 25, 2013.
J.H. Korn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-27564 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60387-60389]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3378]

Acceptability of Draft Labeling To Support Abbreviated New Drug
Application Approval; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Acceptability of
Draft Labeling to Support ANDA Approval.''

    This guidance provides recommendations and information related to
the submission of proposed labeling with abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs). It explains FDA's interpretation of the
regulatory provision related to submission of copies of applicants'
proposed labeling and clarifies that FDA's Office of Generic Drugs
(OGD) will accept draft labeling and does not require the submission of
final printed labeling (FPL) in order to approve an ANDA.

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-3378 for ``Acceptability of Draft Labeling to Support ANDA
Approval, Guidance for Industry.'' Received comments will be placed in
the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit written requests for single
copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New
Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that
office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Coley, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Acceptability of Draft Labeling to Support ANDA Approval.''
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's Good Guidance
Practices (GGP) regulation (Sec.  10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). This
guidance is being implemented without prior public comment because the
Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible
or appropriate (Sec.  10.115(g)(2)). The Agency made this determination
because the guidance presents a less burdensome policy consistent with
the public health. Although this guidance document is immediately in
effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with the Agency's
GGP regulation.
    This guidance provides recommendations and information related to
the submission of copies of proposed labeling with ANDAs under section
505(j)(2)(A)(v) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(v)) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act and FDA's implementing regulations (21 CFR
314.94(a)(8)). This guidance clarifies that OGD will accept and approve
ANDAs based on draft labeling.
    In the past, OGD generally asked applicants to submit copies of FPL
as opposed to draft labeling before receiving ANDA approval. OGD
generally requested FPL before approving ANDAs because this version of
the labeling reflected an accurate presentation of both the content and
the formatting of the labeling.
    As ANDA labeling submissions have evolved over time, particularly
with respect to the submission of electronic versions of labeling, OGD
has found that draft versions of labeling can enable an appropriate
labeling review before FPL is produced.
    Given changes in submission practices and the applicable
regulations over time, OGD is clarifying that it will approve ANDAs on
the basis of draft

labeling, provided that OGD is able to make a determination that the
draft labeling complies with applicable requirements (other than
editorial or similar minor deficiencies).
    The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on the
acceptability of draft labeling to support ANDA approval. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-25351 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 65738]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR15-13-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1),: Amendment to
SOC to be effective 1/1/2015; Filing Type: 1000.
    Filed Date: 10/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20151015-5304.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-53-000.
    Applicants: Perryville Gas Storage LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Perryville Gas Storage--
August 2015 Tariff Modifications to be effective 11/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20151015-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-54-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: AVC ADIT PLR to be effective
12/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20151015-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-55-000.
    Applicants: High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Administrative Refile to be
effective 10/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20151015-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-56-000.
    Applicants: High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation to be effective 10/
15/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20151015-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-57-000.
    Applicants: Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Monroe Gas Storage--August
2015 Tariff Modifications to be effective 11/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20151015-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-58-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing TETLP OFO 2015 Penalty Disbursement
Report.
    Filed Date: 10/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20151015-5254.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP08-426-019.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.501: Refund Report.
    Filed Date: 9/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150930-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 19, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27181 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29128-29130]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13343]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80988; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary
.02 To Rule 6.72 in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in Options Classes
in Certain Issues Through December 31, 2017

June 21, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on June 9, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Exchange Rule 6.72
in order to extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in certain issues
(``Pilot Program'') previously approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') through December 31,

2017. The Pilot Program is currently scheduled to expire on June 30,
2017. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange hereby proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Exchange
6.72 to extend the time period of the Pilot Program, \4\ which is
currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017, through December 31,
2017. The Exchange also proposes that the dates to replace issues in
the Pilot Program that have been delisted be revised to the second
trading day following July 1, 2017.\5\ The Exchange believes that
extending the Pilot would allow for further analysis of the Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Pilot Program should be
structured in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79524 (December 12,
2016), 81 FR 91220 (December 16, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-156).
    \5\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., June) would not be used for
purposes of the analysis for determining the replacement class.
Thus, a replacement class to be added on the second trading day
following July 1, 2017 would be identified based on The Option
Clearing Corporation's trading volume data from December 1, 2016
through May 31, 2017. The Exchange will announce the replacement
issues to the Exchange's membership through a Trader Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Pilot
Program: All classes currently participating will remain the same and
all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the
benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be
able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been
demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \6\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to
participate in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders,
investors and public customers and viewed as successful by the other
options exchanges participating in it. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will
allow the Exchange to extend the Pilot Program prior to its expiration
on June 30, 2017. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not
propose any new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, but
instead relates to the continuation of an existing program that
operates on a pilot basis.
    The Exchange believes that the Pilot Program promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by enabling public customers and other
market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell
options to the benefit of all market participants.
    The proposal to extend the Pilot Program is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system, by allowing the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of
the Pilot Program while also allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot Program.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Pilot Program
is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges.
The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow for
continued competition between Exchange market participants trading
similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the
same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow
with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot
Program.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing.\13\ However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the
Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Without a
waiver of 30-day operative delay, the Exchange's Pilot Program will
expire before the extension of the Pilot Program is operative. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay for the
instant filing is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because doing so will allow the Pilot Program to
continue without interruption in a manner that is consistent with the
Commission's prior approval of the extension and expansion of the Pilot
Program and will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time
to analyze the impact of the Pilot Program. Accordingly, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the
Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-68. 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 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-68 and should
be submitted on or before July 18, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13343 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P