[Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 70907-70909]
[DOCID:fr23no05-149]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52786; File No. SR-NASD-2005-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos.
1, 2, and 3 Thereto To Limit the Eligibility for Quotation on the OTCBB
of the Securities of an Issuer That Is Repeatedly Delinquent in Its
Periodic Reporting Obligations

November 16, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On January 28, 2005, the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to limit the eligibility for
quotation on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (``OTCBB'') of the
securities of an issuer that is repeatedly late or otherwise delinquent
in filing required periodic reports.\3\ Nasdaq submitted Amendment No.
1 to this filing on May 10, 2005.\4\ Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 2
to this filing on June 24, 2005.\5\ Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 3 to
this filing on August 15, 2005.\6\ The proposed rule change, as
amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on August
24, 2005.\7\ The Commission received one comment letter on the
proposal.\8\ Nasdaq \9\ and the NASD \10\ each responded to the comment
letter. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that subsequent to publication of the
Notice, the Commission approved the NASD's proposal to amend its
Plan of Allocation and Delegation of Functions by the NASD to
Subsidiaries, as well as certain corresponding NASD rules, to permit
the NASD to assume direct authority for over-the-counter (``OTC'')
equity operations, including the OTCBB, rather than continuing to
delegate this authority to Nasdaq. Nasdaq, however, will continue to
furnish the OTCBB quotation and trade reporting platform and certain
other services that it provided with respect to over-the-counter
equity operations. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52508
(September 26, 2005), 70 FR 57346 (September 30, 2005) (SR-NASD-
2005-089).
    \4\ Amendment No. 1, which replaced the original filing in its
entirety, made clarifying changes to the proposal's rule text;
provided greater detail regarding how Nasdaq would notify issuers
about the proposed rule; and stated that the proposed rule would be
implemented for those filings for periods ending on or after June 1,
2005.
    \5\ Amendment No. 2, which replaced the original filing and
Amendment No. 1 in their entirety, further clarified the proposal's
rule text; and amended the proposal's rule text to provide that
filings for reporting periods ending before June 1, 2005, would not
be considered for purposes of the proposed rule change.
    \6\ Amendment No. 3, which supplemented the filing as modified
by Amendment No. 2, amended the proposal's rule text to provide that
filings for reporting periods ending before October 1, 2005, would
not be considered for purposes of the proposed rule change.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52291 (August 18,
2005), 70 FR 49701 (``Notice'').
    \8\ See E-mail from John Meade to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>dated
September 14, 2005.
    \9\ See Letter from Edward S. Knight, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Commission, dated September 29, 2005.
    \10\ See Letter from Andrea Orr, Assistant General Counsel,
NASD, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, dated October 14, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Pursuant to current NASD Rule 6530 (the ``Eligibility Rule''), for
an issuer's securities to be eligible and remain eligible for quotation
on the OTCBB by an NASD member, the issuer must be current in its
filings with the Commission or other appropriate regulator.\11\ When a
security becomes ineligible for quotation on the OTCBB due to the
Eligibility Rule, either because a required periodic filing is not made
or because a filing is incomplete,\12\ Nasdaq appends an additional
character ``E'' designator to the security's symbol.\13\ If the issuer
does not comply within the applicable grace period provided by the
Eligibility Rule (typically 30 days),\14\ the Rule prohibits NASD
members from quoting the issuer's securities on the OTCBB.

Nasdaq notes that approximately 80% of issuers achieve compliance
within the applicable grace period, while 20% are removed from
quotation on the OTCBB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40878 (January 4,
1999), 64 FR 1255 (January 8, 1999) (SR-NASD-98-51).
    \12\ In order for a filing to be complete, it must, for example,
contain all required certifications, attestations, and financial
statements, including an auditor's review pursuant to SAS-100 (for
quarterly reports) or an unqualified auditor's opinion (for annual
reports). See, e.g., Rule 13a-14 under the Act, 17 CFR 240.13a-14,
and Rules 10-01(d) and 2-02(c) of Regulation S-X, 17 CFR 210.10-
01(d) and 210.2-02(c). In addition, the auditor must be registered
with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. See section
102(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 7212(a).
    \13\ Nasdaq also appends an ``E'' to a security's symbol when it
fails to receive notice that an issuer, which files with a regulator
other than the Commission, has timely filed. In the case of those
issuers, the Nasdaq generally receives notice of a regulatory filing
from the applicable market maker or the issuer itself, and will
investigate any instance where it has not received such notice. See
Telephone conversation between Tim Fox, Attorney, Commission, and
Arnold Golub, Associate Vice President, Nasdaq on May 20, 2005.
    \14\ The Eligibility Rule provides a 60-day grace period to
banks, savings association and insurance companies that do not file
with the Commission, but are required to file with other regulators.
See NASD Rule 6530(a)(3) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq reports that it has identified a high level of non-
compliance with the Eligibility Rule. Specifically, over the two-year
period ended August 31, 2004, Nasdaq identified over 3,000 instances of
delinquent or otherwise incomplete filings by 1,806 OTCBB issuers, of
which 1,067 were still quoted as of August 31, 2004. Of the 1,806
issuers, 1,035 were late in filing one time, 548 issuers were
delinquent twice and 223 were delinquent three or more times. Given the
high rate of recidivism, Nasdaq has proposed to amend NASD Rule 6530(e)
to make certain OTCBB securities ineligible for quotation on the OTCBB
for a period of one year. Specifically, the proposed rule change would
prohibit NASD members from quoting on the OTCBB the securities of OTCBB
issuers that have been delinquent in their filing obligations on the
number of occasions and within the time frame specified in the proposed
rule, as described below. Nasdaq has proposed to implement the rule
change in connection with filings for reporting periods ending on or
after October 1, 2005.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Amendment No. 3, supra note 6. Filings for reporting
periods ending before October 1, 2005, would not be considered in
determining the applicability of proposed NASD Rule 6530(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed NASD Rule 6530(e)(1), an NASD member would be
prohibited from quoting on the OTCBB for a period of one year the
securities of those OTCBB issuers that submit a required filing late or
in an incomplete form three times in the prior two-year period while
the security was quoted on the OTCBB.\16\ Accordingly, the securities
of an OTCBB issuer would become ineligible for quotation on the OTCBB
on the third time in the prior two-year period that the issuer does not
file in complete form a required periodic report by the due date
(including, if applicable, any extensions permitted by Rule 12b-25
under the Act,\17\ but without the benefit of any grace period for this
third delinquency).\18\ In applying the look-back associated with this
provision, Nasdaq would consider reports characterized by due dates
(including, if applicable, any extensions permitted by Rule 12b-25
under the Act) that fell within the prior two-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A filing would not be considered late for the purposes of
this proposed rule if it is made within any applicable extensions
permitted pursuant to Rule 12b-25 under the Act, 17 CFR 240.12b-25.
Nasdaq also appends an ``E'' to a security's symbol when it does not
receive notice that an issuer that files with a regulator other than
the Commission has timely filed. Nasdaq would not consider such
occurrences to be a late filing for purposes of the proposed rule if
the issuer did, in fact, timely file with the appropriate regulator.
Nonetheless, Nasdaq states that these issuers can help alleviate
confusion by providing Nasdaq with a copy of the filing made with
the appropriate regulator on or before its due date.
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.12b-25.
    \18\ Prior to such removal, Nasdaq intends to provide issuers
with 7 calendar days to request review of the determination by a
hearings panel. See File No. SR-NASD-2005-067, which proposes to
clarify the availability of a process to review eligibility
determinations under NASD Rule 6530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed NASD Rule 6530(e)(2), an NASD member would be
prohibited from quoting on the OTCBB for a period of one year the
securities of those OTCBB issuers that are removed from the OTCBB due
to the issuer's failure to satisfy paragraphs (a)(2), (3) or (4) of
NASD Rule 6530 twice in the prior two-year period.\19\ According to
Nasdaq, the more stringent test for this category reflects the greater
length of the filing delinquencies, i.e., these issuers were unable to
regain compliance even within the applicable ``grace'' period. In
applying the look-back associated with this provision, Nasdaq would
consider the date the security is removed, without regard to when the
delinquent reports were actually due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ An issuer that is not removed because it files a late
report after requesting a hearing pursuant to the NASD Rule 9700
Series but before a decision has been issued in the matter would not
be considered to have failed to file pursuant to proposed NASD Rule
6530(e)(2), but would be considered to have filed late for purposes
of proposed NASD Rule 6530(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, as amended, only filings for which
the grace period ends while the issuer's securities are quoted on the
OTCBB would be considered.\20\ Once they become ineligible for
quotation on the OTCBB because the conditions in NASD Rule 6530(e)(1)
or (e)(2) have occurred, the securities of an OTCBB issuer would not
become eligible for re-inclusion on the OTCBB until the issuer has
timely filed in a complete form all required annual and quarterly
reports for a period of one year. Thus, the securities of, for example,
most domestic issuers would not be eligible for re-inclusion until the
issuer has timely filed at least one Form 10-K and three Forms 10-Q.
While a late filing during the period when an issuer is ineligible for
quotation on the OTCBB would reset the ineligibility period, once an
issuer that is removed for failure to satisfy NASD Rule 6530(e)(1) or
(e)(2) is re-included, Nasdaq would not consider late filings due prior
to the date of re-inclusion under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Thus, for example, an OTCBB-quoted issuer that has no prior
late filings fails to file its Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005, prior to the end of the applicable grace period.
The issuer is removed from the OTCBB under existing NASD Rule
6530(a)(2), and thereafter also files its Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2006, after the due date. The issuer is subsequently
re-included on the OTCBB. Only the late filing for the period ended
December 31, 2005, would count for purposes of the proposed rule
change because the issuer was not quoted on the OTCBB when the grace
period for the March 31, 2006 filing expired. See Telephone
conversation between Tim Fox, Attorney, Division of Market
Regulation, Commission, and Arnold Golub, Associate Vice President,
Nasdaq, on August 17, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Nasdaq has proposed to clarify its current position that
the 60-day grace period applicable to banks and savings associations
also applies to holding companies for such entities. Nasdaq believes
that this clarification is appropriate because, like banks and savings
associations, these holding companies must also file publicly available
periodic reports with the appropriate state or federal regulator.

III. Summary of Comments and the Nasdaq's and NASD's Response

    The Commission received one comment in response to the proposed
rule change, as amended.\21\ The commenter urged the Commission and the
NASD to ``start properly regulating the smallcap market.''
Specifically, the commenter advocated that all public companies,
regardless of size, be required to file periodic financial reports. In
addition, the commenter recommended that if a reporting issuer is
delinquent with respect to a required filing for 60 days, then trading
in its securities should be halted in all venues until such time as it
files the late report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response to the comment letter,\22\ Nasdaq affirmed the
importance of timely filing periodic financial reports. Nasdaq
explained that an NASD rule governing the OTCBB already imposes a
requirement that all issuers of securities quoted on the OTCBB file
periodic reports and be current in those filings with the appropriate
regulator. Nasdaq does not believe, however, that halting the trading
of the securities of delinquent OTCBB issuers would be appropriate,
since other OTC marketplaces, including the Pink Sheets, do not require
reporting issuers to be current in their filings. Nasdaq reiterated its
view that the proposed rule change strikes an appropriate balance,
because it is designed to increase the timeliness of disclosure
available to investors and to prevent the securities of issuers who
repeatedly fail to comply with their disclosure obligations from being
quoted on the OTCBB, subject to an appropriate grace period for
companies that only

occasionally experience problems in submitting complete filings in a
timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD also responded to the single comment letter received on
the proposal.\23\ In its response, the NASD noted, among other things,
that it regulates trading in both the OTCBB and the Pink Sheets, and
that there are, in certain instances, rules that are applicable only to
trading in OTCBB securities. Further, the NASD noted that, as part of
the recent transfer of direct authority over the OTCBB from Nasdaq to
NASD,\24\ the NASD is currently analyzing whether certain distinctions
across quotation services in the OTC market are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 10.
    \24\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association
and, in particular, the requirements of section 15A of the Act \25\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission finds specifically
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\26\ which requires, among other things,
that the NASD's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \27\ In approving this proposed rule change, as amended, the
Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, the securities of an OTCBB issuer
that submits a required periodic filing late or in an incomplete form
three times during a two-year period, and the securities of an OTCBB
issuer that are removed from the OTCBB as a result of the issuer's
failure to file a required report with the appropriate regulatory
agency two times in a two-year period, would become ineligible for
continued quotation on the OTCBB by an NASD member. The issuer's
securities, however, would become again eligible for quotation on the
OTCBB when the issuer has timely filed, in a complete form, all
required annual and quarterly reports for a one-year period.
    In the Commission's view, the proposed rule change is designed to
protect investors and the public interest by setting forth conditions
upon which an NASD member would be precluded from quoting on the OTCBB
for a period of one year the securities of those OTCBB issuers that
have failed to meet their reporting obligations on the number of
occasions and within the time frame specified in the proposed rule
change. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change's
imposition of a one-year ban from quotation on the OTCBB upon the
issuer's third failure during a two-year period to file a complete
required annual or quarterly report by its due date (including any
extension permitted by Rule 12b-25 under the Act), or upon the second
removal of the issuer's securities from the OTCBB during a two-year
period, are designed to foster the timeliness of disclosure available
to the public by OTCBB issuers. Once such issuer has timely filed in a
complete form all required annual and quarterly reports for a one-year
period, its securities would become re-eligible for quotation on the
OTCBB.
    The Commission believes that the proposal provides measures that
are designed to exclude from its applicability those OTCBB issuers that
occasionally and inadvertently fail to comply with their reporting
obligations. The securities of OTCBB issuers would not be precluded
from quotation on the OTCBB, unless the issuer failed to file annual or
quarterly reports or filed incomplete reports three times during the
prior two-year period or unless the issuer's securities were removed
from the OTCBB twice in the prior two-year period due to the issuer's
failure to file required reports. A required periodic filing would not
be considered delinquent if the issuer files a complete Form 12b-25
with the Commission and submits the report within the applicable time
frame specified in Rule 12b-25 under the Act.
    With respect to the procedural rights of OTCBB issuers adversely
affected by the operation of the proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that OTCBB issuers retain the right to initiate the hearing
process under NASD Rule 9700 Series, through which an issuer could
request a review of an ineligibility determination made pursuant to
NASD Rule 6530. Moreover, Nasdaq has represented that it would provide
OTCBB issuers that file late or are otherwise delinquent a third time
in a two-year period with seven calendar days' notice prior to removal
of the issuer's securities from the OTCBB in order to allow the issuer
to request a review of the determination by a hearings panel under the
NASD Rule 9700 Series. In addition, Nasdaq has represented that, upon
implementation, it plans to provide an OTCBB issuer notification
whenever Nasdaq determines that the issuer is late in a periodic
filing, along with an explanation of the consequences of the OTCBB
issuer's delinquent status.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Telephone conversation between Arnold Golub, Associate Vice
President, Nasdaq and Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, and Tim Fox, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission on November 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NASD staff has advised of plans to identify on the OTCBB
Web site, http://www.otcbb.com, those OTCBB issuers that are subject to

removal from quotation on the OTCBB for a one-year period if the issuer
fails to satisfy the requirements of NASD Rule 6530(e)(1) or (e)(2). In
the event that an issuer's securities are to be removed from the OTCBB
because the security has become ineligible for quotation pursuant to
NASD Rule 6530(e), the NASD staff has advised of plans to indicate the
date on which the issuer's securities no longer will be eligible for
quotation on the OTCBB.\29\ In the Commission's view, this information
will help broker-dealers and investors to ascertain those securities
that are at risk of being removed from the OTCBB for a one-year period,
if the issuer fails to keep current in its reporting obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Telephone conversation among Arnold Golub, Associate Vice
President, Nasdaq, Andrea Orr, Assistant General Counsel, NASD,
Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation,
Commission and Tim Fox, Special Counsel, Division of Market
Regulation, Commission on November 16, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2005-011), as amended,
be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6455 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29707-29710]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10424]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed
Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0145; FRL-9844-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; NOX SIP Call

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), in a letter dated October 18, 2021. The revision
includes corrections to deficiencies to Alabama's regulation titled
``NOX Budget Program Monitoring and Reporting'' (AL
NOX SIP Call Monitoring Rule), which EPA previously
conditionally approved into the SIP. Specifically, the AL
NOX SIP Call Monitoring Rule establishes monitoring and
reporting requirements for units subject to the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) SIP Call, including alternative monitoring options for
certain sources of NOX. EPA is also proposing to convert the
conditional approval to a full approval. In addition, EPA is proposing
to approve other minor changes into the SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0145 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Scofield, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9034. Mr. Scofield can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also
called the good neighbor provision, states are required to address the
interstate transport of air pollution. Specifically, the good neighbor
provision requires that each state's implementation plan contain
adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the
state that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), or that will interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other state.
    In October 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA finalized the ``Finding of
Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional
Transport of Ozone'' (NOX SIP Call). The NOX SIP
Call required eastern states, including Alabama, to submit SIPs that
prohibit excessive emissions of ozone season NOX by
implementing statewide emissions budgets.\1\ The NOX SIP
Call addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 ozone NAAQS and
was designed to mitigate the impact of transported NOX
emissions, one of the precursors of ozone.\2\ EPA developed the
NOX Budget Trading Program, an allowance trading program
that states could adopt to meet their obligations under the
NOX SIP Call. This trading program allowed the following
sources to participate in a regional cap and trade program: Generally,
electricity generating units (EGUs) with capacity greater than 25
megawatts (MW); and large industrial non-EGUs, such as boilers and
combustion turbines, with a rated heat input greater than 250 million
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). The NOX SIP Call
also identified potential reductions from cement kilns and stationary
internal combustion engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998).
    \2\ As originally promulgated, the NOX SIP Call also
addressed good neighbor obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, but EPA subsequently stayed and later rescinded the rule's
provisions with respect to that standard. See 65 FR 56245 (September
18, 2000); 84 FR 8422 (March 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with the NOX SIP Call requirements, in 2001,
ADEM submitted a revision to add new rule sections to the SIP-approved
version of Alabama Administrative Code Chapter 335-3-1, General
Provisions, and Chapter 335-3-8, Control of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions.
EPA approved the revision as compliant with Phase I of the
NOX SIP Call in 2001. See 66 FR 36919 (July 16, 2001). The
approved revision required EGUs and large non-EGUs in the State to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading Program beginning in
2004. In 2005, Alabama submitted, and EPA approved, a SIP revision to
address additional emissions reductions required for the NOX
SIP Call under Phase II. See 70 FR 76694 (December 28, 2005).
    In 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which
required several eastern states, including Alabama, to submit SIPs that
prohibited emissions consistent with revised ozone season
NOX budgets (as well as annual budgets for NOX
and sulfur dioxide). See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); see also 71 FR
25328 (April 28, 2006). CAIR addressed the good neighbor provision for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of
transported NOX emissions with respect to ozone and
PM2.5. CAIR established several trading programs that EPA
implemented through federal implementation plans (FIPs) for EGUs

greater than 25 MW in each affected state, but not large non-EGUs;
states could submit SIPs to replace the FIPs that achieved the required
emission reductions from EGUs and/or other types of sources.\3\ When
the CAIR trading program for ozone season NOX was
implemented beginning in 2009, EPA discontinued administration of the
NOX Budget Trading Program; however, the requirements of the
NOX SIP Call continued to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAIR had separate trading programs for annual sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions, seasonal NOX emissions, and
annual NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55659), EPA approved revisions to
Alabama's SIP that incorporated requirements for CAIR. Consistent with
CAIR's requirements, EPA approved a SIP revision in which Alabama
regulations: (1) Sunset its NOX Budget Trading Program
requirements, and (2) incorporated CAIR annual and ozone season
NOX state trading programs. See 72 FR 55659. Participation
of EGUs in the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program
addressed the State's obligation under the NOX SIP Call for
those units, and Alabama also chose to require non-EGUs subject to the
NOX SIP Call to participate in the same CAIR trading
program. In this manner, Alabama's CAIR rules incorporated into the SIP
addressed the State's obligations under the NOX SIP Call
with respect to both EGUs and non-EGUs.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The ruling
allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule
consistent with the court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on
developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued to be
implemented with the NOX annual and ozone season trading
programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual trading
program beginning in 2010.
    Following the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and address good
neighbor obligations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011). Through FIPs, CSAPR required EGUs in eastern
states, including Alabama, to meet annual and ozone season
NOX emission budgets and annual SO2 emission
budgets implemented through new trading programs. Implementation of
CSAPR began on January 1, 2015.\4\ CSAPR also contained provisions that
would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with
the implementation of the CSAPR compliance requirements. Participation
by a state's EGUs in the CSAPR trading program for ozone season
NOX generally addressed the state's obligation under the
NOX SIP Call for EGUs. CSAPR did not initially contain
provisions allowing states to incorporate large non-EGUs into that
trading program to meet the requirements of the NOX SIP Call
for non-EGUs. EPA also stopped administering CAIR trading programs with
respect to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014).
    \5\ See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) and 81 FR 13275 (March
14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with CSAPR, Alabama adopted SO2 and
NOX CSAPR trading program rules, including budgets, in ADEM
Administrative Code Chapters 335-3-5 and 335-3-8. On August 31, 2016,
EPA approved Alabama's CSAPR annual SO2 and annual
NOX trading program rules into the SIP.\6\ See 81 FR 59869.
Because EPA stopped administering the CAIR trading programs after 2014,
the approved CAIR rules in Alabama's SIP have not been implemented for
several years. Furthermore, ADEM repealed all CAIR and CAIR-related
regulations from Alabama Administrative Code Chapters 335-3-1, 335-3-5,
and 335-3-8 on December 9, 2011.\7\ Even though the CAIR programs were
not being implemented in Alabama, ozone season NOX emissions
have remained well below the NOX SIP Call budget levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the 2016 action, EPA did not act on the portion of
Alabama's SIP submittal intended to replace Alabama units'
obligations to participate in CSAPR's federal trading program for
ozone-season NOX emissions.
    \7\ Although CAIR-related regulations were repealed from ADEM
Administrative Code on December 11, 2011, the repeal of the
regulations was not effective until February 20, 2015. EPA removed
the repealed regulations from the SIP, effective August 6, 2021. See
86 FR 35610 (July 7, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After litigation that reached the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit
generally upheld CSAPR but remanded several state budgets to EPA for
reconsideration. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118,
129-30 (D.C. Cir. 2015). EPA addressed the remanded ozone season
NOX budgets in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update), which also partially addressed
eastern states' good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The air quality modeling for the CSAPR
Update demonstrated that Alabama contributes significantly to
nonattainment and/or interferes with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in other states. The CSAPR Update reestablished an option for
most states to meet their ongoing obligations for non-EGUs under the
NOX SIP Call by including the units in the CSAPR Update
trading program.
    The CSAPR Update trading program replaced the original CSAPR
trading program for ozone season NOX for most covered
states. On October 6, 2017, EPA approved Alabama's CSAPR Update ozone
season NOX trading program rules for EGUs into Alabama's
SIP.\8\ See 82 FR 46674.\9\ Alabama's EGUs participate in the CSAPR
Update trading program, generally also addressing the state's
obligations under the NOX SIP Call for EGUs. However,
Alabama elected not to include its large non-EGUs in the CSAPR Update
ozone season trading program. Because Alabama's large non-EGUs no
longer participate in any CSAPR or CSAPR Update trading program for
ozone season NOX emissions, the NOX SIP Call
regulations at 40 CFR 51.121(r)(2), as well as anti-backsliding
provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(f) and 40 CFR 51.1105(e), require these
non-EGUs to maintain compliance with NOX SIP Call
requirements in some other way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This action approved CSAPR and CSAPR Update-related
provisions of Alabama SIP submissions dated October 26, 2015, and
May 19, 2017.
    \9\ In subsequent litigation, the D.C. Circuit upheld the CSAPR
Update in virtually all respects but remanded it because it was
partial in nature and did not fully eliminate upwind states'
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by ``the relevant downwind
attainment deadlines'' in the CAA. Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303,
313-15 (D.C. Cir. 2019). To address the remand, in 2021 EPA issued
the Revised CSAPR Update, in which the Agency determined (among
other things) that the requirements established for Alabama in the
CSAPR Update did in fact constitute a full remedy for the state's
good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 86
FR 23054, 23054 (April. 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) of the NOX SIP Call
regulations, where a state's implementation plan contains control
measures for EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and combustion turbines,
the SIP must contain enforceable limits on the ozone season
NOX mass emissions from these sources. In addition, under 40
CFR 51.121(i)(4) of the NOX SIP Call regulations as
originally promulgated, the SIP also had to require these sources to
monitor emissions according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 75, which
generally entails the use of continuous

emission monitoring systems (CEMS). Alabama triggered these
requirements by including control measures in its SIP for these types
of sources, and the requirements have remained in effect despite the
discontinuation of the NOX Budget Trading Program after the
2008 ozone season.
    On March 8, 2019, EPA revised some of the regulations that were
originally promulgated in 1998 to implement the NOX SIP
Call.\10\ The revision gave states covered by the NOX SIP
Call greater flexibility concerning the form of the NOX
emissions monitoring requirements that the states must include in their
SIPs for certain emissions sources. The revision amended 40 CFR
51.121(i)(4) to make part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
optional, such that SIPs may establish alternative monitoring
requirements for NOX SIP Call budget units that meet the
general requirements of 40 CFR 51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1). Under the
updated provision, a state's implementation plan still needs to include
some form of emissions monitoring requirements for these types of
sources, consistent with the NOX SIP Call's general
enforceability and monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 51.121(f)(1) and
(i)(1), respectively, but states are no longer required to satisfy
these general NOX SIP Call requirements specifically through
the adoption of 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``Emissions Monitoring Provisions in State
Implementation Plans Required Under the NOX SIP Call,''
84 FR 8422 (March 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through a letter to EPA dated February 27, 2020, ADEM provided a
SIP revision to incorporate changes to ADEM Administrative Code Chapter
335-3-8 to include Rule 335-3-8-.71, ``NOX Budget Program,''
and Rule 335-3-8-.72, ``NOX Budget Program Monitoring and
Reporting,'' to maintain state compliance with the federal
NOX SIP Call regulations at 40 CFR 51.121 and 51.122, and to
provide alternative monitoring options for certain large non-EGUs.
Subsequently, on September 15, 2020, ADEM sent a letter requesting that
EPA conditionally approve ADEM Rule 335-3-8-.72 and committing to
provide a SIP revision to EPA by July 7, 2022 to address a deficiency
related to misplacement of stack testing requirements within ADEM Rule
335-3-8-.72(1).\11\ Based on the State's commitment to submit a SIP
revision addressing the identified deficiency, EPA conditionally
approved the February 27, 2017, submission. See 86 FR 35610.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ These stack testing requirements were mistakenly added to
335-3-8-.72(1)(c), which allows sources to fulfill NOX
SIP call monitoring requirements by operating a NOX CEMS
outside of Part 75 requirements, instead of 335-3-8-.72(1)(d), which
uses emissions factors.
    \12\ In the same action, EPA approved removal of the CAIR
trading program, removal of the NOX Budget Trading
Program rules, and the State's renumbering of the existing
regulation titled ``New Combustion Sources'' from Rule 335-3-8-.14
to Rule 335-3-8-.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Why is EPA proposing this action?

    In accordance with its commitment letter, ADEM submitted a SIP
revision on October 18, 2021,\13\ requesting that EPA approve into the
SIP a revision that would correct the deficiency found in Rule 335-3-
8-.72 by moving the stack testing requirement from 335-3-8-.72(1)(c) to
335-3-8-.72(1)(d) in order to satisfy the prior conditional approval.
EPA is proposing to approve the October 18, 2021, SIP revision, as well
as proposing to convert EPA's July 7, 2021, conditional approval to a
full approval. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve other minor
changes into the SIP which correct references to NOX mass
emissions rather than NOX concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA notes that the October 18, 2021, submittal was received
by EPA on October 20, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of Alabama's Submission

    As discussed above, ADEM revised its regulations to include Rule
335-3-8-.71, ``NOX Budget Program,'' and Rule 335-3-8-.72,
``NOX Budget Program Monitoring and Reporting,'' which
require non-EGUs to maintain compliance with NOX SIP Call
requirements without participation in an interstate trading program.
Through a letter to EPA dated February 27, 2020, ADEM provided a SIP
revision to incorporate changes to ADEM Administrative Code Chapter
335-3-8 to include Rule 335-3-8-.71, ``NOX Budget Program,''
and Rule 335-3-8-.72, ``NOX Budget Program Monitoring and
Reporting,'' to maintain state compliance with the federal
NOX SIP Call regulations at 40 CFR 51.121 and 51.122, and to
provide alternative monitoring options for certain large non-EGUs.
While ADEM Rule 335-3-8-.72 generally addressed the State's ongoing
obligations under the NOX SIP Call, EPA identified one issue
impacting monitoring under ADEM's rule. The version of Rule 335-3-72
provided in the SIP revision contained an error regarding the placement
of stack testing requirements. These stack testing requirements were
meant to be added to 335-3-8-.72(1)(d), which uses emissions factors,
but instead, were mistakenly added to 335-3-8-.72(1)(c), which allows
sources to fulfill NOX SIP call monitoring requirements by
operating a NOX CEMS outside of part 75 requirements. On
September 15, 2020, \14\ ADEM sent a letter requesting that EPA
conditionally approve ADEM Rule 335-3-8-.72 and committing to provide a
SIP revision to EPA by July 7, 2022 to address the aforementioned
deficiency by moving the stack testing requirements from 35-3-
8-.72(1)(c) to (d) In that letter, ADEM also committed to EPA that it
would make a final submission to EPA within twelve (12) months of the
grant of conditional approval of the February 27, 2020, submittal to
correct this stack testing issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ADEM's September 15, 2020, letter from Lance R.
LeFleur, Director, to Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator, US EPA
Region 4, available in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 18, 2021, ADEM submitted a SIP revision, requesting that
EPA approve into the SIP a revision that would correct the deficiency
found in Rule 335-3-8-.72, ``NOX Budget Program Monitoring
and Reporting,'' in order to satisfy the prior conditional approval.
See 86 FR 35610 (July 7, 2021). In this revision, the stack testing
requirement has been moved from Rule 335-3-8-.72(1)(c) to Rule 335-3-
8-.72(d). This change ensures that stack testing is performed at least
once every five years, which is necessary to verify historical
NOX concentration and flow rate factors used to compute
NOX mass emissions at units utilizing the alterative
monitoring option under 335-3-8-.72(1)(d). Additionally, ADEM revised
an incorrect reference to calculating the ``NOX
concentration'' to correctly refer to ``NOX mass emissions''
in two instances in Rule 335-3-8-.72(d). In that rule, ADEM intends for
sources to calculate NOX mass emissions utilizing
NOX concentrations.
    EPA is proposing to find that ADEM Rule 335-3-8-.72 meets the
State's ongoing obligations under the NOX SIP Call with
respect to monitoring to ensure compliance with required limitations,
and that ADEM has addressed the previously identified deficiency. Thus,
EPA is also proposing to convert the July 7, 2021, conditional approval
of Alabama Rule 335-3-8-.72 to a full approval.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Alabama Administrative Code Rule 335-3-8-.72,
``NOX Budget Program Monitoring and Reporting,'' which
establishes emission monitoring

requirements for units subject to the NOX SIP call, state
effective December 13, 2021. EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's October 18, 2021, submission,
which revises Alabama Rule 335-3-8-.72, ``NOX Budget Program
Monitoring and Reporting'' to correct the stack testing requirement by
moving it from 335-3-8-.72(1)(c) to 335-3-8-.72(1)(d) and correct
language in 335-3-8-.72(d) to refer to NOX mass emissions.
In addition, EPA is proposing to convert the July 7, 2021, conditional
approval of Alabama Rule 335-3-8-.72 to a full approval. EPA requests
comment on these proposals.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 10, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-10424 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65763-65764]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-43]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor
the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before November 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0706 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Andrea Copeland,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking
(ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 23, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-0706.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.981(a)(3) at Amendment 25-64.
    Description of Relief Sought: Exemption from the requirements of
fuel-tank structural lightning protection

for horizontal-stabilizer fuel tanks on Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes.

[FR Doc. 2012-26581 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24847-24851]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0434]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; East River, Brooklyn, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated
navigation area (RNA) for the navigable waters of the Manhattan side of
the East River, south of Dupont Street in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and
East 25th Street in Manhattan, and north of a line drawn from the
northwest corner of Pier 5 Brooklyn to the northeast corner of the
Governors Island Ferry Manhattan Terminal. The RNA is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
associated with a dielectric oil spill response. This RNA establishes
vessel speed restrictions on vessels transiting near the pollution
response area unless specifically authorized by the First District
Commander or the Captain of the Port New York to exceed those
restrictions.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from May 31, 2017
through 5 p.m. on July 14, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from 4 p.m. May 16, 2017, through May 31,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0434 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management at Coast Guard
First District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Jeff Yunker, Sector New York Waterways Management Division;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port New York
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
TFR Temporary final rule
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On May 8, 2017, we established a temporary safety zone entitled
``Safety Zone; East River and Buttermilk Channel, Brooklyn, NY'' for
emergency pollution response. The effective period for the safety zone
is from 4 p.m. on May 8, 2017, until 5 p.m. on July 14, 2017. This
safety zone prohibits all vessels from transiting through the

Brooklyn side of the East River and Buttermilk Channel, south of Dupont
Street in Greenpoint, Brooklyn and East 25th Street in Manhattan, and
Buttermilk Channel, north of the Buttermilk Channel Entrance Lighted
Gong Buoy 1 (LLNR 36985).
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because impracticable and contrary to the
public interest to delay this rule to let a comment period run. It
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because
waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's
response to protecting the environment and public from the dangers
associated with a maritime pollution response effort.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public
interest for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The First District Commander and COTP have determined that
vessels producing a wake near the emergency pollution response
activities and in-water shoreside repair operations will be a safety
concern for pollution response vessels, machinery, and personnel.
Further, the emergency pollution response activities pose hazards to
the boating public and the maritime environment. This rule is necessary
to limit damage to deployed containment boom, and to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters adjacent to
the RNA while these activities are in progress.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a RNA from 4 p.m. May 16, 2017 through 5 p.m.
July 14, 2017. The RNA will cover all navigable waters of the Manhattan
side of the East River, south of Dupont Street in Greenpoint, Brooklyn,
and East 25th Street in Manhattan, and north of a line drawn from the
northwest corner of Pier 5 Brooklyn to the northeast corner of the
Governors Island Ferry Manhattan Terminal.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31MY17.000

    The duration of the RNA is intended to limit damage to the
pollution containment boom, and protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment adjacent to these navigable waters during the
emergency pollution response. No vessel or person will be permitted to
produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than five (5) knots
unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway
without obtaining permission from the First District Commander, 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the RNA. Vessel traffic will be able to
safely transit through this RNA, which will impact a small designated
area of the East River, NY during emergency pollution response
operations. Vessels will be able to transit at a ``Slow-No Wake'' speed
limit and vessels may attain speeds greater than five (5) knots if a
higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway. The
Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the RNA.

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 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
RNA 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
contact 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

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
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 RNA lasting two months that will prohibit vessels from
producing a wake or attaining speeds greater than five (5) knots unless
a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental
Consideration for Categorically Excluded Actions will be available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and 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:  33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0434 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01  0434 Regulated Navigation Area; East River, Brooklyn,
NY.

    (a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area
(RNA): All waters of the Manhattan half of the East River, south of a
line drawn from (pa) 40[deg]44'07.5'' N., 073[deg]57'40.3'' W. (Dupont
Street, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, NY) to 40[deg]44'10.1'' N.,
073[deg]58'21.6'' W. (NAD 83) (East 25th Street, Manhattan, NY) and
north of a line drawn from the northwest corner of Pier 5 Brooklyn to
the northeast corner of the Governors Island Ferry Manhattan Terminal.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated Representative. A ``designated representative'' is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard who has been designated by the First District Commander or
COTP to act on his or her behalf. A designated representative may be on
an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with
vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the
Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this
regulation.
    (2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of
any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
    (c) Enforcement Period. This RNA is effective and will be enforced
from 4

p.m. on May 16, 2017, through 5 p.m. July 14, 2017.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.10, 165.11, and 165.13 as well as the following regulations, apply.
    (2) During periods of enforcement, all vessel movement within the
RNA is subject to a ``Slow-No Wake'' speed limit. Vessels may not
produce a wake nor not attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless
a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.
    (3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S.
Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the
operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.

    Dated: May 16, 2017.
S.D. Poulin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-11212 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39011-39013]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31148; Amdt. No. 3759]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective August 17, 2017. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of August 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 28, 2017.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 14 September 2017

Magnolia, AR, Ralph C Weiser Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1B
Monticello, AR, Monticello Muni/Ellis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt
1
Keokuk, IA, Keokuk Muni, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 26, Orig-D
Tipton, IA, Mathews Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-A
Washington, IA, Washington Muni, VOR/DME RWY 36, Amdt 1B
Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 31B
Angola, IN, Tri-State Steuben County, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 7B, CANCELED
Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, LOC BC RWY 14, Amdt 15C, CANCELED
Kentland, IN, Kentland Muni, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 27, Orig-A,
CANCELED
Kentland, IN, Kentland Muni, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 3, CANCELED
Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig
Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig
St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 3
Emporia, VA, Emporia-Greensville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 2A

East Troy, WI, East Troy Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1B
Fort Atkinson, WI, Fort Atkinson Muni, VOR-A, Orig-D

Effective 12 October 2017

Holy Cross, AK, Holy Cross, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-C
Holy Cross, AK, Holy Cross, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-C
Alexander City, AL, Thomas C Russell Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Alexander City, AL, Thomas C Russell Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3
Napa, CA, Napa County, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36L, Amdt 2B
Okeechobee, FL, Okeechobee County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-D
Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, Amdt 4
Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 4
Panama City, FL, Northwest Florida Beaches Intl, VOR/DME RWY 16,
Orig, CANCELED
Panama City, FL, Northwest Florida Beaches Intl, VOR/DME RWY 34,
Orig, CANCELED
West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28R, Amdt 3B
Cedar Rapids, IA, The Eastern Iowa, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 18C
Cedar Rapids, IA, The Eastern Iowa, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 6E
Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, VOR-A, Orig-B
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 20B
Smith Center, KS, Smith Center Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Smith Center, KS, Smith Center Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 14A
Newberry, MI, Luce County, VOR RWY 11, Amdt 12, CANCELED
Newberry, MI, Luce County, VOR RWY 29, Amdt 12, CANCELED
Boonville, MO, Jesse Viertel Memorial, VOR-A, Amdt 5A
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 16
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, LOC BC RWY 20, Amdt 13
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 2
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 2
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
6
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 4
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, VOR Y RWY 20, Amdt 4
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, VOR Z RWY 20, Amdt 5
Fulton, MO, Elton Hensley Memorial, VOR-A, Amdt 5
Jefferson City, MO, Jefferson City Memorial, ILS OR LOC RWY 30, Amdt
6
Lee's Summit, MO, Lee's Summit Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2
Rolla/Vichy, MO, Rolla National, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-A
Fargo, ND, Hector Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 2
Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 8B
Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 4B
Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 13, Orig-C
Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig-A
Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City Intl, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 15C
Berlin, NJ, Camden County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-E
Berlin, NJ, Camden County, VOR-B, Amdt 2B
Hammonton, NJ, Hammonton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1C
Hammonton, NJ, Hammonton Muni, VOR-B, Amdt 2C
Millville, NJ, Millville Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 2C
Millville, NJ, Millville Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 1B
Ocean City, NJ, Ocean City Muni, VOR-A, Orig-B
Vineland, NJ, Kroelinger, VOR OR GPS-B, Orig-A
Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 5
Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 5
Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2
Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2
Artesia, NM, Artesia Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Syracuse, NY, Syracuse Hancock Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 8
Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, VOR RWY 9, Orig-D, CANCELED
Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 7
Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, VOR-A, Orig
Cleveland, OH, Burke Lakefront, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 6
Finleyville, PA, Finleyville Airpark, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Finleyville, PA, Finleyville Airpark, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Crewe, VA, Crewe Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-A, CANCELED
Crewe, VA, Crewe Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig, CANCELED
Crewe, VA, Crewe Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Crewe, VA, Crewe Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
Newport, VT, Northeast Kingdom Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1A
Newport, VT, Northeast Kingdom Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 3A
Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 14R,
Amdt 1
Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 8
Fond Du Lac, WI, Fond Du Lac County, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1A
Tomahawk, WI, Tomahawk Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 2B
Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 1D
Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 2A
Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A
Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-A
Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, VOR RWY 29, Orig-C
Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 14B
Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-B
Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-B
Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 17C
    RESCINDED: On July 13, 2017 (82 FR 32228), the FAA published an
Amendment in Docket No. 31139, Amdt No. 3751 to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.29 and 97.33. The
following entries for Orlando, FL, effective July 20, 2017, are
hereby rescinded in their entirety:

Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, Amdt 4
Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 4

[FR Doc. 2017-17005 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73316-73317]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0350; OMB Control Number 1625-0041]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0041,
Various International Agreement Pollution Prevention Certificates and
Documents, and Equivalency Certificates; without change.
    Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 30,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2022-0350] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0350], and
must be received by January 30, 2023.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Various International Agreement Pollution Prevention
Certificates and Documents, and Equivalency Certificates.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0041.
    Summary: Required by the adoption of the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) and other
international treaties, these certificates and documents are evidence
of compliance for U.S. vessels on international voyages. Without the
proper certificates or documents, a U.S. vessel could be detained in a
foreign port.
    Need: Compliance with treaty requirements aids in the prevention of
pollution from ships.
    Forms:
     CG-5352, International Oil Pollution Prevention
Certificate.
     CG-5352A, Form A Supplement to the International Oil
Pollution Prevention Certificate (IOPP Certificate).
     CG-5352B, Form B Supplement to the International Oil
Pollution Prevention Certificate (IOPP Certificate).
     CG-6047, International Sewage Pollution Prevention
Equivalency Certificate.
     CG-6047A, Statement of Voluntary Compliance for Sewage
Pollution Prevention.
     CG-6056, International Air Pollution Prevention
Certificate.
     CG-6056A, Supplement to International Air Pollution
Prevention Certificate.
     CG-6056B, Statement of Voluntary Compliance for Annex VI
of MARPOL 73/78.

     CG-6056C, Supplement to Statement of Voluntary Compliance
for Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78.
     CG-6057, Statement of Voluntary Compliance.
     CG-6059, International Anti-Fouling Systems Certificate.
     CG-6059A, Record of Anti-Fouling Systems.
     CG-6060, International Energy Efficiency (IEE)
Certificate.
     CG-6060A, Supplement to the International Energy
Efficiency Certificate (IEE Certificate).
     CG-9191, International Ballast Water Management
Certificate (Statement of Voluntary Compliance).
     CG-16478, International Certificate on Inventory of
Hazardous Materials (Statement of Voluntary Compliance).
    Why is the Coast Guard proposing to add a new form: The Coast Guard
is adding an optional form CG-16478 to provide U.S. vessel owners and
operators a way to document equivalent compliance with the Hong Kong
International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound
Recycling of Ships, 2009 (Hong Kong (HK) Convention). The form may aid
a U.S. vessel during a foreign Port State Control boarding.
    Respondents: Owners, operators, or masters of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,993
hours to 4,350 hours, due to an increase in the estimated number of
responses. In addition, the estimated burden has increased by 19 hours,
due to a new optional form--the International Certificate on Inventory
of Hazardous Materials (Statement of Voluntary Compliance) (form CG-
16478). The total estimated burden is 4,369 hours.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended, and is 33 U.S.C. 1901-1911

    Dated: November 18, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-25929 Filed 11-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P