1 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi 28573 1077657940 823000000. wpd MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Eddinger, EPA/ ESD FROM: Roy Oommen, ERG/ MOR DATE: November 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Summary of July 14, 2003 Site Visit to Weyerhauser's Pulp and Paper Mill Located at Plymouth, North Carolina U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) conducted a site visit to the Weyerhauser pulp and paper mill located at Plymouth, North Carolina to assess types of fuels burned in the onsite boiler. The EPA was represented by Jim Eddinger and the EPA contractor. Weyerhauser was represented by Steve Woock ( Federal Regulatory Affairs Manager), Will Hardison, and Don Wynn.

Mr. Eddinger provided background information on the boiler MACT standard.

Weyerhauser representatives then provided the following information:

° The facility has 4 boilers ( HOG1, HOG2, Riley, backup) and a recovery boiler ° The mill has approximately 30 different wood suppliers for the boilers. Wood to be burned in the boilers comes primarily from mills, sawmills and landfill suppliers ( e. g.,

wood debris, ground pallets).

° No railroad ties or telephone poles are burned. The facility is not permitted to burn treated wood.

° The main components of Hogged Fuel are bark and green wood residues.

° Hogged fuel must meet size and shape limitations.

° Random sampling is taken on delivered hogged fuel. Ash levels are not to exceed 15 percent, and solids content is not to go under 43 percent.

° The primary difficulties firing hog fuel are moisture content, non uniform particle size and mix, and sand and dirt in the fuel. 2 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi 28573 1077657940 823000000. wpd ° Knots and screens are landfilled.

° The fuel analysis for coal burned is supplied by the coal mine.

° The amount of biofuel burned is back calculated based on steam output and coal use.

A tour was then led through the mill, including visits to the purchasing and woodyard departments, and the power department.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28688-28692]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11519]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69547; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Fees and Rebates Applicable to Qualified Contingent Cross Orders

May 9, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on May 1, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend fees and rebates applicable to
Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend fees and rebates applicable
to both electronic QCC Orders (``eQCC'') \3\ and Floor QCC Orders \4\
(collectively ``QCC Orders''). The Exchange believes that the proposed
amendments to its pricing for QCC Orders will enable the Exchange to
attract additional QCC Orders by increasing the amount of rebates paid
for certain increased thresholds and eliminating service fees on QCC
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer and be rejected if a Customer order
is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall
only be submitted electronically from off the floor to the PHLX XL
II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April 13, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order to facilitate
the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs'')
that satisfy the requirements of the trade through exemption in
connection with Rule 611(d) of the Regulation NMS).
    \4\ A Floor QCC Order must: (i) be for at least 1,000 contracts,
(ii) meet the six requirements of Rule 1080(o)(3) which are modeled
on the QCT Exemption, (iii) be executed at a price at or between the
National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO''); and (iv) be rejected if a
Customer order is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. In
order to satisfy the 1,000-contract requirement, a Floor QCC Order
must be for 1,000 contracts and could not be, for example, two 500-
contract orders or two 500-contract legs. See Rule 1064(e). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64688 (June 16, 2011), 76 FR
36606 (June 22, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange pays rebates on QCC Orders based on the
following five tier rebate schedule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Rebate per
                         Threshold                             contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 199,999 contracts in a month..........................        $0.00
200,000 to 499,999 contracts in a month....................         0.01
500,000 to 699,999 contracts in a month....................         0.05
700,000 to 999,999 contracts in a month....................         0.07
Over 1,000,000 contracts in a month........................         0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, the Exchange pays a rebate on all qualifying executed QCC
Orders, as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as
defined in 1064(e), except where the transaction is either: (i)
Customer-to-Customer; or (ii) a dividend,\5\ merger,\6\ short stock
interest \7\ or reversal or conversion strategy \8\ execution. Today,
the maximum rebate the Exchange will pay in a given month for QCC
Orders is $275,000. Today, QCC Transaction Fees for a Specialist,\9\
Market Maker,\10\ Professional,\11\ Firm\12\ and Broker-Dealer \13\ are
$0.20 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A dividend strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \6\ A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to achieve
a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
options of the same class and expiration date, executed the first
business day prior to the date on which shareholders of record are
required to elect their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash
or stock. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \7\ A short stock interest strategy is defined as transactions
done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the
purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same
class. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \8\ Reversal and conversion strategies are types of transactions
that employ calls and puts of the same strike price and the
underlying stock. Reversals are established by combining a short
stock position with a short put and a long call position that shares
the same strike and expiration. Conversions employ long positions in
the underlying stock that accompany long puts and short calls
sharing the same strike and expiration. See Section II of the
Pricing Schedule.
    \9\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \10\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders
(Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders
(see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \11\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \12\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at OCC.
    \13\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to pay rebates on QCC Orders for all
qualifying executed QCC Orders, as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) and
Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e), except where the transaction
is either: (i) Customer-to-Customer; or (ii) a dividend, merger, short
stock interest or reversal or conversion strategy executions.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the QCC Rebate Schedule by
increasing the Tier 1 threshold of 0 to 199,999 to 0 to 299,999. The
Exchange will continue to not pay a rebate for a QCC Order for Tier 1.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 2 threshold from 200,000 to
499,999 to 300,000 to 499,999 and also increase the Tier 2 rebate from
$0.01 to $0.07 per contract. The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 3
threshold of 500,000 to 699,999 by increasing the Tier 3 rebate from
$0.05 to $0.08 per contract. The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 4,
which has a threshold of 700,000 to 999,999, by increasing the current
rebate from $0.07 to $0.09 per contract. The Exchange does not propose
to amend the Tier 5 threshold of over 1,000,000 contracts in a month or
rebate of $0.11 per contract.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the maximum QCC Rebate
that the Exchange pays in a given month. Today, the maximum QCC Rebate
that the Exchange pays in a given month is $275,000. The Exchange
proposes to increase the maximum QCC Rebate to $375,000.
    As mentioned herein, QCC Transaction Fees for a Specialist, Market
Maker, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer are $0.20 per contract. The
Exchange does not propose to amend this fee.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate certain Service Fees associated
with QCC Orders. Today, for QCC Orders as defined in Exchange Rule
1080(o), and

Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e), a Service Fee of $0.07 per
side is assessed to a Specialist or Market Maker that has reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap.\14\ The $0.07 Service Fee applies to every
contract side of a QCC Order and Floor QCC Order after a Specialist or
Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap, except for
reversal and conversion strategies executed via QCC. The Service Fee is
not assessed to a Specialist or Market Maker that does not reach the
Monthly Market Maker Cap in a particular calendar month. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate the Service Fee of $0.07 per side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option
Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in
Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e));
and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL
Order or specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading
activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member
organizations is aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market Maker
Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member organizations.
All dividend, merger, short stock interest and reversal and
conversion strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are
excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, today for QCC Orders as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o),
and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e), a Service Fee of $0.01 per
side applies once a Firm has reached the Monthly Firm Fee Cap,\15\
except for reversal and conversion strategies executed via QCC. This
$0.01 Service Fee applies to every contract side of a QCC Order and
Floor QCC Order after a Firm has reached the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. The
Service Fee is not assessed to a Firm that does not reach the Monthly
Firm Fee Cap in a particular calendar month. The Exchange proposes to
eliminate the Service Fee of $0.01 per side. Once a Specialist or
Market Maker reaches the Monthly Market Maker Cap or a Firm reaches the
Monthly Firm Fee Cap in a given month those market participants would
not be assessed transaction fees, including the $0.20 per contract QCC
Transaction Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Firms are subject to a maximum fee of $75,000 (``Monthly
Firm Fee Cap''). Firm Floor Option Transaction Charges and QCC
Transaction Fees, as defined in this section above, in the
aggregate, for one billing month may not exceed the Monthly Firm Fee
Cap per member organization when such members are trading in their
own proprietary account. All dividend, merger, and short stock
interest strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are
excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. Reversal and conversion
strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are included in
the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. QCC Transaction Fees are included in the
calculation of the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to insert tier numbers into the QCC Rebate
Schedule for ease of reference to identify each rebate tier.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to amend the QCC Rebate
Schedule to increase the threshold in Tier 1 (from 0 to 199,999 to 0 to
299,999) and 2 (from 200,000 to 499,999 to 300,000 to 499,999) because
the Exchange is seeking to encourage market participants to transact a
greater number of QCC Orders. Today, a market participant does not
receive a rebate for transacting less than 200,000 contracts today.
With this proposal, the threshold is increased so that a market
participant does not receive a rebate for transacting less than 300,000
contracts. The Exchange is also proposing to increase all rebates in
Tiers 2, 3, and 4. The Tier 2 is being increased from $0.01 to $0.07
per contract, the Tier 3 rebate is being increased from $0.05 to $0.08
per contract and the Tier 3 rebate is being increased from $0.07 to
$0.09 per contract. The Exchange believes that increasing the rebates
offered for transacting QCC Orders will incentivize market participants
to transact a greater number of QCC Orders. The Exchange believes that
the amendments to the QCC Rebate Schedule are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is proposing to uniformly
increase the rebates for all qualifying market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the maximum QCC Rebate that the
Exchange will pay in a given month from $275,000 to $375,000 is
reasonable because this proposal should encourage market participants
to transact a greater number of QCC Orders in order to obtain higher
rebates. The Exchange's proposal to increase the maximum QCC Rebate
that the Exchange will pay in a given month from $275,000 to $375,000
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is
increasing the maximum for any market participant that transacts QCC
Orders and qualifies for rebates. All market participants are eligible
to transact QCC Orders.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating the Service Fees applicable
to QCC Orders when the Specialist or Market Maker has reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap ($0.07 Service Fee) or when a Firm has reached
the Monthly Firm Fee Cap ($0.01 Service Fee) is reasonable because it
should also incentivize Specialists, Market Makers and Firms to
transact a greater number of QCC Orders because no Service Fee will be
assessed once the applicable monthly cap has been reached by these
market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the elimination of the Service Fees is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is
proposing to uniformly not assess a Service Fee on QCC Transactions to
any market participant. Today, only Specialists, Market Makers and
Firms are assessed Service Fees on QCC Orders and those Service Fees
are being eliminated. By eliminating the Services Fees applicable to
QCC Orders when the Specialist or Market Maker has reached the Monthly
Market Maker Cap ($0.07 Service Fee) or when a Firm has reached the
Monthly Firm Fee Cap ($0.01 Service Fee), the Exchange would not assess
transaction fees to Specialists, Market Makers and Firms once the
respective caps are reached by these market participants. Customers are
not assessed transaction fees in Sections I or II of the Pricing
Schedule because Customer order flow brings unique benefits to the
market which in turn benefits all market participants. For this reason,
there is no need to cap Customer transaction fees. Also, members
receive rebates for qualifying Customer transactions pursuant to the
Customer Rebate Program in Section B of the Pricing Schedule. A
Professional and Broker Dealer will be assessed transaction fees on all
transactions, because today these market participants' fees are not
capped. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to cap transaction fees for Specialists and Market
Makers and not have them pay the additional $0.07 per contract Service
Fee on QCC Orders above the Monthly Market Maker Cap, thereby
increasing the differential between these market participants and other
market participants not subject to a cap (Professionals and Broker-
Dealers) because Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting
obligations \18\ to the market which do not apply to Customers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. In addition, Specialists and
Market Makers are subject to

Payment for Order Flow Fees \19\ whereas Customers, Professionals,
Firms and Broker-Dealers are not subject to such fees. With respect to
Firms, the Exchange today caps Firm transaction fees. This proposal
would no longer assess the $0.01 per contract Service Fee for QCC
Orders above the Monthly Firm Cap. While the elimination of the Service
Fees will increase the differential that exists today between Firms as
compared to Professionals and Broker-Dealers, as is also the case with
Specialists and Market Makers that will no longer pay Service Fees
above the Monthly Market Maker Cap, the Exchange notes that today
Firms, Specialists and Market Makers do not pay transaction fees once
they have reached the applicable cap for other types of non-QCC
transactions. Today, the Exchange only assesses Service Fees for QCC
Orders because these fees provided the Exchange the means to defray
costs incurred in providing the qualified contingent cross capability
and allowed the Exchange to offer rebates to incentivize trading. At
this time, the Exchange desires to assess no Service Fees for QCC
Orders similar to other transactions. With respect to Firms, the
Exchange today provides a similar incentive in terms of a reduction of
fees for Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and
Non-Penny Pilot Options, provided the Firm has achieved certain volume
requirements.\20\ Finally, the differential created by the elimination
of the Service Fee above the Monthly Firm Cap as between Firms and
Professionals and Broker-Dealer is within the range of other
differentials today on the Exchange's Pricing Schedule \21\ and at
other options exchanges.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Exchange Rule 1014 entitled ``Obligations and
Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options
Traders.''
    \19\ Payment for Order Flow Fees are assessed as follows: $.25
per contract for options that are trading in the Penny Pilot Program
and $.70 per contract for other equity options. See Section II of
the Pricing Schedule. Payment for Order Flow Fees are assessed on
transactions resulting from Customer orders and are available to be
disbursed by the Exchange according to the instructions of the
Specialist units/Specialists or Directed ROTs to order flow
providers who are members or member organizations, who submit, as
agent, customer orders to the Exchange or non-members or non-member
organizations who submit, as agent, Customer orders to the Exchange
through a member or member organization who is acting as agent for
those Customer orders. Specialists and Directed ROTs who participate
in the Exchange's payment for order flow program are assessed a
Payment for Order Flow Fee, in addition to ROTs. Therefore, the
Payment for Order Flow Fee is assessed, in effect, on equity option
transactions between a Customer and an ROT, a Customer and a
Directed ROT, or a Customer and a Specialist. A ROT or ``Registered
Options Trader'' is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) as a regular
member of the Exchange located on the trading floor who has received
permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his own
account. A ROT includes a Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT''), a Remote
Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'') and a Non-SQT, which by definition
is neither a SQT or a RSQT. See Exchange Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii).
    \20\ Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
and non-Penny Pilot Options are reduced to $0.17 per contract for a
given month provided that a Firm has volume greater than 500,000
electronically-delivered contracts in a month (``Electronic Firm Fee
Discount'').
    \21\ Today, when a Firm reaches the Monthly Firm Cap, the
differential that exists for as between a Professional or Broker-
Dealer for a floor transaction and a Firm is $0.25 as Professionals
and Broker-Dealers are assessed a Floor Options Transaction Charge
of $0.25 per contract.
    \22\ CBOE currently assesses a Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary an equity options fee of $.20 per contract and a Broker-
Dealer electronic order an equity options fee of $.45 per contract.
See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adding the tier references to the QCC
Rebate Schedule is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would add clarity to the Pricing Schedule.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the threshold
quantities in Tiers 2 and 3 and also increase the rebates paid for
Tiers 2, 3 and 4 does not impose a burden on competition. The
Exchange's proposal should continue to encourage market participants to
transact a greater number of QCC Orders in order to obtain a rebate and
because the Exchange is also increasing the maximum QCC Rebate number,
that rebate could be larger than it is today.
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Service Fees for QCC
Orders which is currently applied to Specialists, Market Makers and
Firms when they exceed the applicable monthly cap also does not impose
a burden on competition because the Exchange is eliminating a Service
Fee for QCC Orders which only applied to these market participants and
not Customers, Professionals and Broker-Dealers. With this proposal, no
market participant would be assessed a Service Fee for QCC Orders. With
respect to the increased differentials as between Firms, Specialists
and Market Makers as compared to other market participants, which are
created by eliminating Service Fees, the Exchange believes that the
differentials are in line with other differentials that exist today on
Phlx and at other options exchanges.\23\ The differentials compensate
Specialists and Market Makers for their role in the marketplace as well
as their burdens.\24\ Likewise, the differential as between Firms as
compared to Professionals and Broker-Dealers is in line with other
differentials that exist today between these market participants on the
Exchange's trading floor.\25\ By offering Firms lower fees or caps in
certain circumstances, the Exchange is encouraging Firms to send order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe that the
elimination of the Service Fees creates an undue burden on competition
but rather treats QCC Orders similar to other transactions where caps
also apply and differentials exist between market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See notes 21 and 22.
    \24\ See note 18.
    \25\ See note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
eleven exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange, as described in the proposal, are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

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

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-Phlx-2013-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-48. 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-Phlx-2013-48 and should be
submitted on or before June 5, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11519 Filed 5-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32108-32110]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2023-0127]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks Display; James River, Newport News, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for navigable
waters within a 400-yard radius of a fireworks barge in the James
River, Newport News, VA. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by the launching of fireworks. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port (COTP) Sector Virginia.

DATES: This rule is effective June 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0127 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Chief, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Virginia, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On January 12, 2023, the City of Newport News notified the Coast
Guard that they will be conducting fireworks display annually on July
4th from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. each year, to commemorate Independence
Day. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge at position
36[deg]58'28.72'' N, 076[deg]26'20.97'' W in the James River in Newport
News, VA. In response, on March 21, 2023, the Coast Guard published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zone; Fireworks
Display; James River, Newport News, VA'' [88 FR 16922; FR 2023-05669].
There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our
proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During
the comment period that ended April 20, 2023, two comments were
received.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector
Virginia (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with
the fireworks to be used in this 4th of July fireworks display will be
a safety concern for anyone within a 400-yard radius of the barge. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable
waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled
event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published
March 21, 2023. Both comments were in support of the regulation. There
are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed
rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone annually on July 4th from 9 to
9:30 p.m. each year. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters
within 400 yards of the fireworks barge located at position
36[deg]58'28.72'' N, 076[deg]26'20.97'' W in the James River in Newport
News, VA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the
fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the James River for less than 1 hour
during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the
Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to
seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only 30 minutes that will prohibit entry within 400
yards of the fireworks barge. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. In Sec.  165.506, amend table 3 to paragraph (h)(3) by adding entry
14 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.506  Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast
Guard District.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) * * *

                       Table 3 to Paragraph (h)(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Safety zone--
       No.             Enforcement          Location      regulated area
                        period(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
14..............  July 4th............  James River,     All waters of
                                         Newport News,    the James
                                         VA; Safety       River, within
                                         Zone.            a 400-yard
                                                          radius around
                                                          position
                                                          36[deg]58'28.7
                                                          2'' N,
                                                          076[deg]26'20.
                                                          97'' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: May 12, 2023.
Jennifer A. Stockwell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Virginia.
[FR Doc. 2023-10676 Filed 5-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5929-5930]
[DOCID:fr05fe10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1066]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA is correcting a table for Carroll County, Arkansas, and
Incorporated Areas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2820 or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating in
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section
110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and
44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with
the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum
requirements. They should not be construed to mean that the community
must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.

Correction

    FEMA is correcting a table in a proposed rule which published on
September 8, 2009, at 74 FR 46047. The table for Carroll County,
Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas contained incorrect information for
the flooding source ``Leatherwood Creek.''
    The September 8, 2009, proposed rule contained a table entitled
``Carroll County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas,'' which contained
errors. For flooding source ``Leatherwood Creek,'' the table contained
inaccurate information as to the communities affected. FEMA is now
publishing a revised table for Carroll County, Arkansas, and
Incorporated Areas, containing the accurate information, to address
these prior errors. The information provided in the table below should
be used in lieu of the table published on September 8, 2009.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                            elevation **          Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Carroll County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leatherwood Creek...................  Approximately 0.61              None       +1,109  City of Eureka Springs,
                                       miles upstream of                                  Unincorporated Areas
                                       Magnetic Road.                                     of Carroll County.
                                      Approximately 1,250             None       +1,131
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Magnetic Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.
Send comments to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Eureka Springs
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 44 South Main Street, Eureka Springs, AR 72632.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Carroll County
Maps are available for inspection at the County Courthouse, 210 West Church Street, Berryville, AR 72616.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-2490 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68199-68200]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-
2000-8203; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-
2008-0266]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
11 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective November 9, 2012. Comments must be
received on or before December 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [FMCSA-1998-3637; 2000-
7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-
17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2008-0266], using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 11 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 11 applications for renewal on their

merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year
period. They are:

John W. Arnold (KY)
Jack E. Benjamin (NY)
Richard B. Eckert (NY)
Gary R. Evans (CT)
Harlan L. Gunter (VA)
David M. Hagadorn (NJ)
Danny L. Hillier (ND)
Gary L. Killian (NC)
Garry R. Setters (KY)
Jimmy E. Settle (MO)
Hubert Whittenburg (MO)
    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 11 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (63 FR 196; 63 FR 30285; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 33406; 65 FR
57230; 65 FR 57234; 65 FR 66293; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 57267;
67 FR 67234; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR
62741; 69 FR 62742; 71 FR 55820; 71 FR 62147; 73 FR 51336; 73 FR 51689;
73 FR 61925; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 74565; 75 FR 52061; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR
66423). Each of these 11 applicants has requested renewal of the
exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while driving with the respective
vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant
continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by December 17, 2012.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 11 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: November 8, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-27695 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68931-68932]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9100-040]

Riverdale Power & Electric Co., Inc.; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the Riverdale
Mills Hydroelectric Project, located on the Blackstone River in the
town of Northbridge, Worcester County, Massachusetts, and has prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
    The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments

using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-9100-040.
    For further information, contact Michael Watts at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 11, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27145 Filed 12-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24830-24832]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8381]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are

met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications
were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

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

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

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance  no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region II

New York:
    Cairo, Town of, Greene            360286  October 3, 1975,    June 2, 2015..........  June 2, 2015
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               6, 1989, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Hunter, Town of, Greene           360292  November 12, 1976,  *-do-.................   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               2, 1983, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Hunter, Village of, Greene        360293  October 1, 1976,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               1, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Jewett, Town of, Greene           361114  May 13, 1980,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 4,
                                               1983, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Lexington, Town of, Greene        360294  September 12,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   1975, Emerg;
                                               August 1, 1983,
                                               Reg; June 2,
                                               2015, Susp.
    Tannersville, Village of,         360297  July 15, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Greene County.                            Emerg; April 18,
                                               1983, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.

          Region III

Virginia:
    Prince George County,             510204  May 17, 1974,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; May 1,
                                               1980, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.

           Region IV

North Carolina:
    Edgecombe County,                 370087  August 6, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; August 3,
                                               1981, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Halifax County,                   370327  November 22, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; May 5,
                                               1981, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Leggett, Town of,                 370317  March 4, 1997,      ......do..............   Do.
     Edgecombe County.                         Emerg; December
                                               20, 1999, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Macclesfield, Town of,            370090  March 25, 1980,     ......do..............   Do.
     Edgecombe County.                         Emerg; March 25,
                                               1980, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Pinetops, Town of,                370091  November 7, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Edgecombe County.                         Emerg; March 28,
                                               1980, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Princeville, Town of,             370318  August 9, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     Edgecombe County.                         Emerg; April 15,
                                               1980, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Speed, Town of, Edgecombe         370093  September 4, 1979,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 2,
                                               1987, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Tarboro, Town of,                 370094  February 15, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Edgecombe County.                         Emerg; January 5,
                                               1978, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.

           Region V

Indiana:
    Andrews, Town of,                 180097  July 28, 1982,      ......do..............   Do.
     Huntington County.                        Emerg; September
                                               30, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Huntington, City of,              180094  August 8, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Huntington County.                        Emerg; July 18,
                                               1983, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.

    Huntington County,                180438  August 21, 1978,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; July 18,
                                               1983, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Markle, Town of,                  180457  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     Huntington and Wells                      November 7, 1991,
     Counties.                                 Reg; June 2,
                                               2015, Susp.
    Roanoke, Town of,                 180096  July 28, 1982,      ......do..............   Do.
     Huntington County.                        Emerg; December
                                               1, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Warren, Town of,                  180095  February 19, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Huntington County.                        Emerg; September
                                               30, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.

           Region VI

Oklahoma:
    Kiowa, Town of, Pittsburg         400168  N/A, Emerg; May     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   11, 2012, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Pittsburg County,                 400494  November 26, 2002,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; November
                                               1, 2007, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.

          Region VIII

Utah:
    Ogden, City of, Weber             490189  December 27, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January
                                               19, 1983, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Riverdale, City of, Weber         490190  October 4, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               3, 1982, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    Roy, City of, Weber County        490223  January 16, 1976,   ......do..............   Do.
                                               Emerg; October
                                               24, 1978, Reg;
                                               June 2, 2015,
                                               Susp.
    South Ogden, City of,             490191  August 2, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Weber County.                             Emerg; March 1,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Uintah, City of, Weber            490192  April 30, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 19,
                                               1981, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
    Weber County,                     490187  March 25, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; July 19,
                                               1982, Reg; June
                                               2, 2015, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- =Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: April 27, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-10229 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83142-83144]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27862]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0756; FRL-9955-29-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; AL Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve in part, and disapprove in part, portions of the
April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015, of the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submissions, submitted by the State of Alabama, through the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), to demonstrate
that the State meets certain infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The
CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated
by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP.
ADEM certified that the Alabama SIP contains provisions that ensure the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and
maintained in Alabama. With the exception of the provisions pertaining
to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, and
visibility in other states, for which EPA is proposing no action
through this notice, and the provisions respecting state boards, for
which EPA is finalizing disapproval, EPA has determined portions of
Alabama's infrastructure SIP submissions, provided to EPA on April 23,
2013, and updated on December 9, 2015, satisfy certain required
infrastructure elements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective December 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0756. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Richard Wong can also be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Overview

    On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010), EPA promulgated
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.
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit
SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to
address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit
such SIPs for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than
January 22, 2013.
    In a proposed rulemaking published on July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47124),
EPA proposed to approve Alabama's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submissions submitted on April 23, 2013, and
December 9, 2015, with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements
for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J)
and the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), and the state board requirements of
section

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). On March 18, 2015, EPA approved Alabama's April 23,
2013, infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of
D(i) and (J) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR
14019.\1\ Therefore, EPA is not taking any action today pertaining to
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J). With respect to the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs
1, 2 and 4), Alabama provided a separate submissions. EPA is
considering action on Alabama's submission related to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1, 2 and 4) through a separate actions.
Additionally, with respect to Alabama's infrastructure SIP submissions
related to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements respecting the section
128 state board requirements, EPA is disapproving this element of
Alabama's submissions in this rulemaking. The details of Alabama's
submission and the rationale for EPA's actions for this final
rulemaking are explained in the July 20, 2016, proposed rulemaking.
Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before August 19,
2016. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ADEM clarified that its December 9, 2015, submission was not
intended to address the PSD requirements that were approved by EPA
on March 18, 2015. See www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-
R04-OAR-2014-0756.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, with the
exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) and the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs
1, 2, and 4). With regard to the state board majority requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is finalizing a disapproval of Alabama'
April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015, infrastructure submissions. Under
section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that
addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in response
to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section
110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being disapproved in this
notice) were not submitted to meet requirements for Part D or a SIP
call, and therefore, no sanctions will be triggered. However, this
final action will trigger the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years
from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the
deficiency, and EPA approves the plan or plan revision before EPA
promulgates such FIP.

III. 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. Accordingly, this
action merely approves 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

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, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 4, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(e), is amended by adding an entry for ``110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable       State submittal
  Name of  nonregulatory  SIP      geographic or       date/effective   EPA approval date       Explanation
           provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2)               Alabama............          4/23/2013  11/21/2016         With the exception of
 Infrastructure Requirements                                             [Insert citation   sections:
 for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.                                          of publication].   110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
                                                                                concerning PSD
                                                                                permitting
                                                                                requirements;
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                and (II) (prongs 1
                                                                                through 4)
                                                                                concerning
                                                                                interstate transport
                                                                                requirements and the
                                                                                state boards of
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.53 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.53   Approval status.

* * * * *
    (c) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Alabama, through the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on April 23,
2013, and December 9, 2015, to address the Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) concerning state board
requirements. EPA is disapproving section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of ADEM's
submittal because the Alabama SIP lacks provisions respecting state
boards per section 128 of the CAA for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
[FR Doc. 2016-27862 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P