[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59509-59511]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0246]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; BWRC Annual Thanksgiving Regatta; Lake Moolvalya,
Parker, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of Lake Moolvalya region on the lower Colorado River in support
of the Bluewater Resort and Casino Annual Thanksgiving Regatta. This
safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants,
crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of
the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on November 28, 2008 through
6 p.m. on November 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0246 and are available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, inserting USCG-XXXX-XXXX in the Docket ID
box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at
two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101 between 8
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Petty Officer Kristen Beer, USCG, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On June 11, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety zone; BWRC Annual Thanksgiving Regatta; Lake
Moolvalya, Parker, Arizona in the Federal Register (73 FR 33028). We
received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting
was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    Southern California Speedboat Club is sponsoring the Bluewater
Resort and Casino Annual Thanksgiving Regatta. The event is a circle
boat race consisting of 85 powerboats ranging from 12 to 22 feet in
length. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other users of the
waterway.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This determination is based on the size and location of the safety
zone. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the safety zone
because they may seek authorization from the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative to travel through the safety zone.
Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the
designated safety zone during the specified times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in the region of Lake Moolvalya on the lower Colorado River
from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on November 28, 2008 through November 30, 2008.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will be in effect for 12 hours per day for a period of three days.
Although the safety zone will apply to the entire width of the river,
traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of
the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Before the
effective period, we will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and
will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via marine channel
16 VFH before the safety zone is enforced.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their

regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-034 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-034  Safety zone; BWRC Annual Thanksgiving Regatta; Lake
Moolvalya, Parker, AZ.

    (a) Location. The limits of the proposed safety zone are as
follows: the Headgate Dam at 34[deg]10.15' N, 114[deg]16.62' W to
34[deg]10.08' N, 114[deg]16.61' W following the river east to a line at
34[deg]10.25' N, 114[deg]15.70' W to 34[deg]10.37' N, 114[deg]15.74' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced daily from 6
a.m. to 6 p.m. on November 28, 2008 through November 30, 2008. If the
event concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of
the Port will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce
that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local agencies.

    Dated: September 25, 2008.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.
[FR Doc. E8-23906 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the “Proposed Rule”) published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible tobacco cigarettes. Quite simply, I know that quitting using tobacco products have saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story on how my physician recommended e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking. I would also like to present science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Kind Regards, John Piraino


[Federal Register: May 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 26490-26491]
[DOCID:fr05my06-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP04-411-000, COE Application CENAP-OP-R-
200500146; Docket No. CP04-416-000, COE Application CENAP-OP-
R-200500145 and 200500146]

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District; Crown
Landing, LLC; Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.; Notice of Availability
of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Crown
Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects

April 28, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries has prepared
a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a liquefied natural
gas (LNG) import terminal (referred to as the Crown Landing LNG
Project) proposed by Crown Landing, LLC (Crown Landing), a BP Energy
Company (BP) affiliate, and natural gas pipeline facilities (referred
to as the Logan Lateral Project) proposed by Texas Eastern
Transmission, L.P. (Texas Eastern) in the above-referenced dockets.
    The final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that
approval of the proposed projects with appropriate mitigating measures
as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The
final EIS also evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including system
alternatives, alternative sites for the LNG import terminal, and
pipeline alternatives.
    The proposed LNG terminal would be located on the shoreline of the
Delaware River in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey, and
would consist of facilities capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up
to 450,000 cubic meters (m3\3\) of LNG (9.2 billion cubic feet of
natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural
gas at a baseload rate of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) and a
maximum rate of 1.4 Bcfd (using spare equipment). Crown Landing
proposes to interconnect the LNG facilities onsite with three
pipelines. One interconnect would be with the new pipeline that Texas
Eastern proposes to construct and operate (i.e., Logan Lateral) between
its existing Chester Junction facility in Brookhaven Borough,
Pennsylvania and the proposed LNG terminal. The other two interconnects
would be with existing pipelines that currently cross the LNG terminal
site. One of these pipelines is owned and operated by Columbia Gas
Transmission Company (Columbia Gas). The other pipeline is owned and
operated by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco). To
date, neither Columbia Gas nor Transco have filed applications with the
FERC to construct and operate the interconnects. The Crown Landing LNG
Project would have a maximum delivery capacity of 0.5 Bcfd to the
Columbia Gas pipeline system, 0.6 Bcfd to the Transco pipeline system,
and 0.9 Bcfd to the Texas Eastern pipeline system.
    The proposed preferred project construction site, referenced above,
is approximately 175 acres in size (waterward of the low water line on
the Delaware River). Within the site there are uplands, wetlands
(federally regulated), and intertidal river shoreline (also federally
regulated). Construction of the proposed LNG terminal would involve the
dredging of shallow water riverbottom and the filling of a small area
of intertidal river shoreline for the installation of berthing
structures in the Delaware River. No permanent filling of federally
regulated wetlands is proposed for construction of the terminal
facilities. The proposed pipeline connection would involve the
installation of about 11.00 miles of new underground pipeline from the
storage and transfer facility in Gloucester County, New Jersey,
crossing Birch Creek, Raccoon Creek, Delaware River, Chester Creek, and
several smaller waterways on both sides of the Delaware River, to an
existing pipeline junction facility in Pennsylvania.
    The Birch Creek, Raccoon Creek, Delaware River, and Chester Creek
crossings would all be accomplished by Horizontal Directional Drilling
(HDD) method. All smaller waterway crossings would be accomplished by
open-cut trenching. The rigging for the HDD crossing of the Delaware
River would be set-up on the Pennsylvania bank of the river in Chester.
The pipeline would be ``pulled under'' the river from the old Ferry
Road roadbed on the New Jersey side.
    The following modifications to the project have been proposed since
the draft EIS was issued:
    (1) Texas Eastern now proposes a contingency plan for constructing
the Chester Creek crossing by open-cut method if the HDD method fails.
    (2) Crown Landing has submitted a minor modification to the
proposed design of the LNG terminal berthing configuration in order to
provide for an enhanced margin of safety in LNG carrier maneuvering.
The modified proposed design is evaluated in the final EIS. In
addition, Crown Landing has re-calculated the volume of material that
would result from the dredging for the proposed LNG terminal berthing
provisions in order to correct an error identified in the original
calculations and to provide for a customary 2 foot ``over-dredge''
volume. There is no change in the proposed dredging depth or dredged
material disposal.
    The draft EIS document indicated that 800,000 cubic yards of
material would be dredged in the construction of the proposed LNG
berthing terminal. Crown Landing now calculates that 1.24 million cubic
yards of material would be dredged: 60,000 cubic yards are added to the
original total from the safety modifications; 110,000 cubic yards are
added by the over-dredge allowance; and 270,000 cubic yards are added
from the error correction.

    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following LNG and natural gas
pipeline facilities:
     A ship unloading facility capable of receiving LNG ships
with capacities up to 200,000 m3;
     Three 150,000 m\3\ (net capacity) full-containment LNG
storage tanks, comprised of 9 percent nickel steel inner tank, pre-
stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof;
     A closed-loop shell and tube heat exchanger vaporization
system;
     Various ancillary facilities, including administrative
offices, warehouse/maintenance building, main control center,
guardhouse, and a pier control room;
     Three meter and regulation stations located on the
proposed LNG terminal site; and
     Approximately 11.00 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline (4.92 miles in Pennsylvania and 6.08 miles in New Jersey), a
pig launcher and receiver facility at the beginning and end of the
pipeline, a mainline valve, and a meter and regulation station at the
end of the pipeline.
    Crown Landing and Texas Eastern have applied concurrently to the
COE for two Department of the Army Individual Permits pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). The COE solicited
public comment on the applications in their public notice which was
included as part of the draft EIS notice for the projects published in
February 2005. The COE is now soliciting public comment on the two
modifications to the original proposal which are described above: (1)
Texas Eastern proposed open-cut contingency for the construction of the
proposed Chester Creek pipeline crossing and; (2) the Crown Landing
berthing terminal safety modification and related dredge volume
calculation.
    The COE is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and
local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate any additional impacts
resulting from the proposed minor design modifications. Any comments
received will be considered by the COE to determine whether to issue,
modify, condition, or deny permits for these proposals as modified. To
make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered
species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects, and the other public interest factors listed in the COE's
original notice included with the draft EIS. Comments are used in
determining the need for and the preparation of any necessary
supplemental NEPA documentation. Comments are also used to determine
the need for a public hearing on the proposed design modifications and
to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activities.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter on the
design modifications to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE.; Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426;
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas 1,
PJ-11.1;
     Reference Docket Nos. (Crown Landing) CP04-411-000 and
(Texas Eastern) CP04-416-000;
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before June 27, 2006 (Copies will be provided to
the COE).
    The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies are also available at the following locations:

Gloucester County Library, 415 Swedesboro Road, Gibbstown, NJ 08027.
Gloucester County Library, 101 Beckett Road, Logan Township, NJ 08085.
J. Lewis Crozier Library, 620 Engle Street, Chester, PA 19013.
Aston Public Library, 3720 Concord Road, Aston, PA 19014.
Brandywine Hundred Branch of the New Castle County Library, 1300 Foulk
Road, Wilmington, DE 19803.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, John Wanamaker
Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    A limited number of copies are available from the Public Reference
Room identified above. In addition, copies of the final EIS have been
mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies; public interest groups;
individuals and affected landowners who requested a copy of the final
EIS; libraries; newspapers; and parties to this proceeding.
    In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action
may be made until 30 days after the EPA publishes a notice of
availability of a final EIS. However, the CEQ regulations provide an
exception to this rule when an agency decision is subject to a formal
internal process that allows other agencies or the public to make their
views known. In such cases, the agency decision may be made at the same
time the notice of the final EIS is published, allowing both periods to
run concurrently. Should the FERC issue Crown Landing and Texas Eastern
authorizations for the proposed projects, it would be subject to a 30-
day rehearing period.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6854 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON LNG AND RELATED FACILITIES LIST OF PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANT AGENCY AFILIATION PHONE E MAIL ADDRESS Thomas Bigford ( 301) 713 4300 Thomas. Bigford@ noaa. gov Karen Abrams ( 301) 713 4300 Karen. Abrams@ noaa. gov Patricia Delgado ( 301) 713 4300 Patricia. Delgado@ noaa. gov Meredith Blaydes ( 301) 713 4300 Meredith. Blaydes@ noaa. gov Dave MacDuffee ( 301) 713 4300 David. MacDuffee@ noaa. gov Andy LoSchiavo NOAA/ HQ/ Habitat Conservation ( 301) 713 4300 Andy. LoSchiavo@ noaa. gov Mi Ae Kim NOAA/ HQ/ Protected Resources ( 301) 713 1401 Mi. Ae. Kim@ noaa. gov Jeff Shenot NOAA/ HQ/ Habitat Restoration ( 301) 713 0174 Jeff. Shenot@ noaa. gov John Hansel NOAA/ HQ/ Fisheries MB ( 301) 713 2239 John. Hansel@ noaa. gov Mark Hodor NOAA/ HQ/ General Counsel ( 301) 713 2231 Mark. Hodor@ noaa. gov Danielle Renart NOAA Marine Aviation and Operations ( 301) 713 3431 Danielle. Renart@ noaa. gov David Kaiser ( 301) 713 3155 David. Kaiser@ noaa. gov Darren Misenko ( 301) 713 3155 Darren. Misenko@ noaa. gov Carrie Hall ( 301) 713 3155 Carrie. Hall@ noaa. gov Elizabeth Mountz NOAA/ NOS/ OCRM ( 301) 713 3155 Elizabeth. Mountz@ noaa. gov John Armor ( 301) 713 3125 John. Armor@ noaa. gov Elizabeth Moore ( 301) 713 3125 Elizabeth. Moore@ noaa. gov Debra Malek NOAA/ NOS/ NMS ( 301) 713 3125 Debra. Malek@ noaa. gov Branden Blum ( 301) 713 2967 Branden. S. Blum@ noaa. gov Mary ( Molly) Holt ( 301) 713 2967 Molly. Holt@ noaa. gov Karl Gleaves NOAA/ NOS/ General Counsel ( 301) 713 2967 Karl. Gleaves@ noaa. gov Miles Croom ( 727) 570 5317 Miles. Croom@ noaa. gov Rickey Ruebsamen NOAA/ SE Region ( 850) 234 5061 Ric. Ruebsamen@ noaa. gov Tom Minello ( 409) 766 3506 Tom. Minello@ noaa. gov Shannon Cass Calay NOAA/ SE Fisheries Science Center ( 305) 361 4231 Shannon. Calay@ noaa. gov Mark Helvey ( 562) 980 4046 Mark. Helvey@ noaa. gov Val Chambers ( 562) 980 4044 Val. Chambers@ noaa. gov Bryant Chesney ( 562) 980 4037 Bryant. Chesney@ noaa. gov Richard Wantuck NOAA/ SW Region ( 707) 575 6063 Richard. Wantuck@ noaa. gov Christopher Boelke ( 978) 281 9131 Christopher. Boelke@ noaa. gov Jack Terrill NOAA/ NE Region ( 978) 281 9136 Jack. Terrill@ noaa. gov Kristen Koyama NOAA/ NE Protected Resources ( 978) 281 9328 Kristen. Koyama@ noaa. gov James Martin ( 202) 502 8045 James. Martin@ ferc. gov John Peconom FERC ( 202) 502 6352 John. Peconom@ ferc. gov James Bennett ( 703) 787 1660 JFBennett@ mms. gov Shawn Alam ( 703) 787 1690 Shawn. Alam@ mms. gov Dirk Herkhof MMS/ HQ ( 703) 787 1735 Dirk. Herkhof@ mms. gov Ashley Allen ( 202) 566 1012 Allen. Ashley@ epa. gov Carey Johnston ( 202) 566 1014 Johnston. Carey@ epa. gov Erik Helm EPA ( 202) 566 1066 Helm. Erik@ epa. gov Mark Prescott ( 202) 267 0225 MPrescott@ comdt. uscg. mil Joan Lang U. S. Coast Guard ( 202) 267 0284 Jlang@ comdt. uscg. mil Carrie Selberg Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ( 202) 289 6400 cselberg@ asmfc. org Jeff Rester Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission ( 228) 875 5912 jrester@ gsmfc. org Fran Recht Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission ( 541) 765 2229 fran_ recht@ psmfc. org


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32317-32320]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14359]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0733; FRL-9996-11-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the Terre Haute Area
to Attainment of the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is redesignating the Terre Haute, Indiana area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
area consists of Fayette and Harrison Townships in Vigo County,
Indiana. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the Indiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP), Indiana's maintenance plan for this area.
EPA proposed to approve Indiana's

redesignation request and maintenance plan on May 3, 2019.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0733. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) 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
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Panock, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Public Comments
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA published a revised primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at a
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile
of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb. This
NAAQS was codified at 40 CFR 50.4. On July 25, 2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA
published its initial air quality designations for the SO2
NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2009-
2011. In that action, the Terre Haute area, comprised of Fayette and
Harrison Townships, was designated nonattainment for the SO2
NAAQS.
    Indiana was required to submit an attainment demonstration that
meets the requirements of sections 172(c) and 191-192 of the CAA and
provide for attainment of the SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, which represents five
years after the area was originally designated as nonattainment under
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Indiana submitted its attainment
demonstration on October 2, 2015. EPA approved the Terre Haute
attainment demonstration on March 22, 2019 (84 FR 10692).
    Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), there are five criteria which must
be met before a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment.
The relevant NAAQS must be attained in the area; the applicable
implementation plan must be fully approved by EPA under section 110(k);
the improvement in air quality must be determined to be due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; the State must meet
all applicable requirements for the area under section 110 and part D;
and EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan and contingency plan for
the area under section 175A of the CAA. On May 3, 2019 (84 FR 19007),
EPA proposed to find that these five criteria have been met for the
Terre Haute nonattainment area, and thus, EPA proposed to redesignate
Terre Haute from nonattainment to attainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.

II. Public Comments

    EPA published its proposed approval of the redesignation request
and maintenance plan on May 3, 2019 (84 FR 19007). The public comment
period for this proposal closed on June 3, 2019. EPA received one
supportive comment.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is redesignating the Terre Haute nonattainment area from
nonattainment to attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Indiana
has demonstrated that the area is attaining the SO2
standard, and that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable SO2 emission reductions in the nonattainment
area. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the Indiana SIP,
Indiana's maintenance plan, which is designed to ensure that the area
will continue to maintain the SO2 standard through the year
2030.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication.
This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from
certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The
immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,'' and section
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable
time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes
effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare
before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the state
of planning requirements for this SO2 nonattainment area.
For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for
these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these
actions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of the geographical
area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on
sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but
rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA
for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the
Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies
with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 September 6, 2019. 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

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 20, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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.

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Terre Haute 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
maintenance plan'' after the entry ``Terre Haute Hydrocarbon Control
Strategy'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Title                    Indiana date          EPA approval                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Terre Haute 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)     ..............  7/8/2019, [insert Federal
 maintenance plan.                                         Register citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry ``Terre Haute, IN''
in the table entitled ``Indiana--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)''
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315   Indiana.

* * * * *

                   Indiana--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                [Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation
       Designated area 1 3       ---------------------------------------
                                     Date \2\              Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Terre Haute, IN.................        7/8/2019  Attainment.
    Vigo County.................
        Fayette Township,
         Harrison Township.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise
  specified. EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of Indian
  country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in
  the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in
  the designation area is not a determination that the state has
  regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Porter County will be designated by December 31, 2020.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-14359 Filed 7-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25758-25759]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0051]

Notice and Request for Comments

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments
about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval for a new information collection. The John A. Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), U.S. DOT, will
conduct this study under an interagency agreement with NHTSA. The
collection involves case study interviews with law enforcement agency
personnel pertaining to their knowledge and practice in using automated
license plate readers (ALPR) for traffic safety purposes. The
information to be collected will be used to document the state of
knowledge and practice in using ALPR for this purpose under the
National Cooperative Research and Evaluation Program (NCREP), which is
managed jointly by NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety Association
(GHSA). Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under procedures
established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB
approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment

on proposed collections of information, including extensions and
reinstatement of previously approved collections.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. NHTSA-
2016-0051] through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Petrella,<PHONE_NUMBER>, The
Volpe Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Economics Analysis
Division (V-321), 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 212--New.
    Title: Using Automated License Plate Readers for Traffic Safety
Purposes.
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Type of Review: New Information Collection.
    Abstract: NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education,
research, safety standards, and enforcement activity. NHTSA has
statutory authority (see 23 U.S.C. 403; 49 CFR 1.50; 49CFR part 501) to
accomplish this mission. Under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, Section
403, the Secretary of Transportation is required to carry out research
and demonstration programs. In addition, the Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Subsection 402(c), states that the
Secretary, acting through the NHTSA Administrator, shall establish a
cooperative program to research and evaluate State highway safety
countermeasures. MAP-21 provides that this new cooperative research and
evaluation program, the National Cooperative Research and Evaluation
Program (NCREP), is to be administered by NHTSA and jointly managed by
NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). The Volpe
Center is providing support to NHTSA under an interagency agreement in
establishing and managing this new cooperative Program. Under the NCREP
Program, GHSA, in conjunction with NHTSA, identified a need to discover
and report on the state of knowledge and practice regarding the use of
ALPRs for traffic safety purposes. As part of this project, this
information collection activity includes case studies that will be
conducted at 9 to 12 law enforcement agency (LEA) sites. Site selection
will cover the diversity of LEAs that are deploying ALPR for traffic
safety purposes (e.g. agencies of different sizes, those operating in
different regions of the country), as determined through a thorough
review of the literature.
    Case studies will involve qualitative interviews with a variety of
personnel in each selected LEA. A discussion guide comprised of
approximately 15 to 20 questions will be used for each interview. This
approach will provide a knowledge base, including rich, contextual
information, from those most knowledgeable about the weaknesses and
strengths or barriers and incentives to this technology's effective
implementation and use for traffic safety purposes.
    Affected Public: Law enforcement agency personnel.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 60 (5 personnel from
each agency).
    Frequency: One time only.
    Number of Responses: 15-20.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 45 hours (45 minutes per respondent).
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued on: April 26, 2016.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2016-10038 Filed 4-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17871-17874]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06987]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91446; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order
Disapproving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 5704

March 31, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On July 23, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend certain listing
requirements relating to maintaining a minimum number of beneficial
holders and minimum number of shares outstanding. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 7,
2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89464 (August 4,
2020), 85 FR 48012 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 10, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On November 5, 2020, the Commission instituted
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
On January 26, 2021, the Commission designated a longer period for
Commission action on the proposed rule change.\8\ The Commission has
received comment letters on the proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89823, 85 FR 57895
(September 16, 2020).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90355, 85 FR 71977
(November 12, 2020) (``OIP'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90994, 86 FR 7750
(February 1, 2021).
    \9\ Comments on the proposed rule change can be found on the
Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-017/srnasdaq2020017.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order disapproves the proposed rule change because, as
discussed below, Nasdaq has not met its burden under the Exchange Act
and the Commission's Rules of Practice to demonstrate that its proposal
is consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5),
and, in particular, the requirement that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed ``to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices'' and ``to protect investors and the
public interest.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    As described in detail in the Notice and OIP, the Exchange proposes
to amend Nasdaq Rule 5704 to: (1) Remove the requirement that, twelve
months after the commencement of trading on the Exchange, a series of
Exchange Traded Fund Shares must have 50 or more beneficial holders
(``Beneficial Holders Rule''); and (2) replace its existing minimum
number of shares requirement (``Minimum Shares Outstanding Rule'') with
a requirement that each series of Exchange Traded Fund Shares have a
sufficient number of shares outstanding at the commencement of trading
to facilitate the formation of at least one creation unit.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Currently, Nasdaq Rule 5704(b)(1)(A) provides that the
Exchange will establish a minimum number of Exchange Traded Fund
Shares required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of
trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the Beneficial Holders Rule is no longer
necessary. The Exchange argues that the requirements of Rule 6c-11
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act''), coupled with
the existing creation and redemption process, mitigate the potential
lack of liquidity that, according to the Exchange, the Beneficial
Holders Rule was intended to address.\12\ The Exchange further asserts
that requiring a sufficient number of shares to be outstanding at all
times to facilitate the formation of at least one creation unit,
together with the daily portfolio transparency and other enhanced
disclosure requirements of

Rule 6c-11 under the 1940 Act,\13\ will facilitate an effective
arbitrage mechanism and provide market participants and investors with
sufficient transparency into the holdings of the underlying portfolio,
and ensure that the trading price in the secondary market remains in
line with the per-share value of a fund's portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In contrast, Nasdaq believes that the shareholder
requirement applicable to common stock is a measure of liquidity
designed to help assure that there will be sufficient investor
interest and trading to support price discovery once a security is
listed. See Notice, supra note 3 at 48012, n.6.
    \13\ As an example, the Exchange notes that Rule 6c-11(c)(1)(vi)
under the 1940 Act requires additional disclosure if the premium or
discount is in excess of 2% for more than seven consecutive days and
argues that this disclosure would provide additional transparency to
investors in the event that the trading value and the underlying
portfolio deviate for an extended period of time, which could
indicate an inefficient arbitrage mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically with respect to arbitrage, the Exchange states that
the arbitrage mechanism relies on the fact that shares of a fund can be
created and redeemed and that shares of a fund are able to flow into or
out of the market when the price of the fund is not aligned with the
net asset value per share of the portfolio. The resulting buying and
selling of the shares of the fund, as well as the underlying portfolio
components, generally causes the market price and the net asset value
per share to converge. In addition, the Exchange states that the proper
functioning of the arbitrage mechanism is reliant on the presence of
authorized participants (``APs'') that are eligible to facilitate
creations and redemptions with the fund and support the liquidity of
the fund. As a result, the Exchange states that the AP is able to buy
and sell Exchange Traded Fund Shares from both the fund and investors.
Because Exchange Traded Fund Shares can be created and redeemed ``in-
kind'' and do not have an upper limit of the number of shares that can
be outstanding, an AP can fulfill customer orders or take advantage of
arbitrage opportunities regardless of the number of shares currently
outstanding. Thus, the Exchange believes that, unlike common stock, the
liquidity of Exchange Traded Fund Shares is not dependent on the number
of shares currently outstanding or the number of shareholders, but on
the availability of APs to transact in the Exchange Traded Fund Shares
primary market.
    To support these contentions, the Exchange provides information,
during a two-month observation period, regarding how closely two
funds--the SPY and QQQ--tracked their respective underlying indexes, as
well as data regarding creation and redemption activity in those two
funds during the same observation period. The Exchange asserts that a
symbiotic relationship exists between the disclosure requirements of
Rule 6c-11 under the 1940 Act, the ability of the AP to create and
redeem shares of a fund, and the functioning of the arbitrage mechanism
that helps to ensure that the trading price in the secondary market is
at fair value. According to the Exchange, this renders the need for a
Beneficial Holders Rule as duplicative and unnecessary.
    The Exchange further asserts that, in order for fund redemptions to
be executed in support of the arbitrage mechanism, it is appropriate
that, in lieu of the Beneficial Holders Rule, the fund have a
sufficient number of shares outstanding in order to facilitate the
formation of at least one creation unit on an initial and continued
listing basis. The Exchange claims that the existence of the creation
and redemption process, daily portfolio transparency, as well as a
sufficient number of shares outstanding to allow for the formation of
at least one creation unit, ensures that market participants are able
to redeem shares and thereby support the proper functioning of the
arbitrage mechanism. According to the Exchange, of the more than 350
funds currently listed on Nasdaq that would be eligible to be listed
under Nasdaq Rule 5704, only two had a single creation unit
outstanding. The remaining funds have, on average, shares outstanding
equal to approximately 300 creation units.
    In addition, the Exchange states that its surveillance program for,
and its ability to halt trading in, Exchange Traded Fund Shares provide
for additional investor protections by further mitigating any abnormal
trading that would affect the prices of Exchange Traded Fund Shares.
    The Commission received two comment letters on the proposal, one
comment in support of the proposal and one comment unrelated to the
proposal.\14\ The commenter in favor of the proposal states that the
Beneficial Holders Rule ``does not appear to provide any meaningful
investor-protection benefits.'' \15\ Specifically, the commenter
expresses the view that the liquidity of shares of an exchange-traded
fund (``ETF'') is primarily a function of the liquidity of the ETF's
underlying securities, that the marketplace taps into this liquidity
through the creation and redemption and arbitrage processes, and that
this mitigates potential price manipulation concerns.\16\ In addition,
the commenter believes that the enhanced disclosure requirements of
Rule 6c-11 under the 1940 Act,\17\ including those relating to an ETF's
portfolio holdings and when an ETF's premium or discount exceeds 2% for
more than seven consecutive days, will help facilitate effective
arbitrage. The commenter conducted a survey of its members that sought
information on level of assets, number of beneficial holders, and
various trading measures of newly-listed ETFs over different periods
following initial listing, and concluded that the number of
shareholders in an ETF does not appear to be a significant
consideration in an ETF's sponsor's decision to delist and terminate an
ETF and that this requirement does not appear to offer investor
protection benefits.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Letter from Timothy W. Cameron, Asset Management
Group--Head, and Lindsey Weber Keljo, Asset Management Group--
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA AMG (December
18, 2020) (``SIFMA Letter''). The second comment letter received was
made in connection with a different Nasdaq rule proposal, therefore,
this second comment letter is not addressed here. See Letter from
Rungsun Pakyo Gunkoom (August 4, 2020) (referencing the file number
to this proposed rule change but commenting on a different Nasdaq
proposal).
    \15\ SIFMA Letter, supra note 14, at 3.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id. at 3-4. The commenter also states that the
Beneficial Holders Rule puts newer and smaller sponsors at an
unnecessary disadvantage to larger sponsors having the enterprise-
wide scale and distribution reach to gather assets in the months
after launch. See id.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission must consider whether Nasdaq's proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, which requires, in
relevant part, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed ``to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices''
and ``to protect investors and the public interest.'' \19\ Under the
Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to demonstrate that a
proposed

rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory
organization [`SRO'] that proposed the rule change.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2), the Commission must disapprove a
proposed rule change filed by a national securities exchange if it
does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
applicable requirements of the Exchange Act. Exchange Act Section
6(b)(5) states that an exchange shall not be registered as a
national securities exchange unless the Commission determines that
``[t]he rules of the exchange are designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers,
or dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by
this title matters not related to the purposes of this title or the
administration of the exchange.'' 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
    \20\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and
operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific
to support an affirmative Commission finding,\21\ and any failure of an
SRO to provide this information may result in the Commission not having
a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\22\ Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's
representations in a proposed rule change is not sufficient to justify
Commission approval of a proposed rule change.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 447 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has consistently recognized the importance of the
minimum number of holders and other similar requirements, stating that
such listing standards help ensure that exchange listed securities have
sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide
the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly
markets.\24\ As stated by a commenter, the minimum number of holders
requirement also helps to mitigate the risks of manipulation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission considers distribution standards, including
minimum number of holders and number of shares outstanding
requirements, to be important means of promoting fair and orderly
markets. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57785 (May
6, 2008), 73 FR 27597 (May 13, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-17) (stating that
the distribution standards, which include exchange holder and number
of shares outstanding requirements ``. . . should help to ensure
that the [Special Purpose Acquisition Company's] securities have
sufficient public float, investor base, and liquidity to promote
fair and orderly markets''); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
86117 (June 14, 2019), 84 FR 28879 (June 20, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2018-46)
(disapproving a proposal to reduce the minimum number of public
holders continued listing requirement applicable to Special Purpose
Acquisition Companies from 300 to 100).
    \25\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 14, at 3 (stating that the
Beneficial Holders Rule was intended to address ``potential price
manipulation,'' among other things).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange is proposing to (1) remove the
Beneficial Holders Rule applicable to Exchange Traded Fund Shares
listed on Nasdaq, and (2) replace its existing Minimum Shares
Outstanding Rule with a requirement that each series of Exchange Traded
Fund Shares have a sufficient number of shares outstanding at the
commencement of trading to facilitate the formation of at least one
creation unit.\26\ In support of its proposal, the Exchange asserts
that the Beneficial Holders Rule is no longer necessary because the
requirements of Rule 6c-11 under the 1940 Act, coupled with the
existing creation and redemption process, mitigate the potential lack
of liquidity that Nasdaq believes the Beneficial Holders Rule was
intended to address. However, the Exchange does not sufficiently
support its assertions under the Exchange Act, particularly where a
series of Exchange Traded Fund Shares is permitted to have a very small
number of beneficial holders. For example, while the Exchange provides
data with respect to two widely held and highly liquid funds, SPY and
QQQ, and explains the role of APs in the creation and redemption
process, it does not sufficiently address how the arbitrage mechanism
will ensure Exchange Traded Fund Shares with very few beneficial
holders would be sufficiently liquid to support fair and orderly
markets. The Exchange also does not discuss in sufficient detail the
potential inefficiencies in the arbitrage mechanism that might occur
with illiquid Exchange Traded Fund Shares that have very few holders,
and the impact that would have on the ability of the arbitrage
mechanism to effectively mitigate the risks of manipulation. In
addition, the Exchange does not sufficiently explain how an efficient
and effective arbitrage mechanism and sufficient liquidity could result
for a series of Exchange Traded Fund Shares held only by a very few
number of buy-and-hold investors and thereby mitigate manipulation
risks. Further, the Exchange does not sufficiently address the impact
of creation unit size on the efficiency of the arbitrage mechanism. For
example, with respect to a series of illiquid Exchange Traded Fund
Shares with very few beneficial holders, the Exchange does not describe
how the proposal is designed to mitigate the risks of manipulation if
the creation unit size for the Exchange Traded Fund Shares is large in
comparison to the total number of Exchange Traded Fund Shares
outstanding. The Exchange provides no data or analysis to support its
position, other than with respect to the SPY and QQQ, two highly liquid
and widely held ETFs, and the number and size of the creation units for
existing Exchange Traded Fund Shares. In fact, although the Exchange
discusses risks relating to lack of liquidity, the Exchange fails to
provide any analysis regarding susceptibility to manipulation under the
Exchange Act in the proposed rule change. As discussed above, the
Beneficial Holders Rule and other minimum number of holders
requirements are important to ensure that trading in exchange listed
securities is fair and orderly and not susceptible to manipulation, and
the Exchange does not sufficiently explain why its proposed
modification of these requirements is consistent with the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Commission identified its concern in the OIP that,
while Nasdaq states that it would require that a sufficient number
of shares to be outstanding at ``all times'' to facilitate the
formation of at least one creation unit, proposed Nasdaq Rule
5704(b)(1)(A) establishes that requirement ``at the time of
commencement of trading on Nasdaq,'' making it an initial and not a
continued listing standard. See OIP, supra note 7, 85 FR at 71978,
n.14. As discussed below, the Exchange has not responded to the
concerns raised in the OIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange also proposes to replace the existing Minimum
Shares Outstanding Rule with a requirement that each series of Exchange
Traded Fund Shares have a sufficient number of shares outstanding at
the commencement of trading to facilitate the formation of at least one
creation unit, the Exchange does not sufficiently explain why this is
an appropriate substitute for its existing standards. Creation unit
sizes could be highly variable, since they are determined at the
discretion of the issuer of Exchange Traded Fund Shares, and the
Exchange has not articulated how this new standard would effectively
support fair and orderly markets, address the risks of manipulation,
and otherwise be consistent with Section 6(b)(5) and other relevant
provisions of the Exchange Act. The Exchange concludes that the
existence of the creation and redemption process, daily portfolio
transparency, and a sufficient number of shares outstanding to allow
for the formation of at least one creation unit would ensure that
market participants are able to redeem shares and thereby support the
proper functioning of the arbitrage mechanism. The Exchange, however,
fails to explain in sufficient detail how an efficient and effective
arbitrage mechanism could result for an illiquid series of Exchange
Traded Fund Shares held by very few beneficial holders and with only
one creation unit of Exchange Traded Fund Shares outstanding. The
Exchange presents evidence that, of the over 350 funds whose shares are
currently listed on Nasdaq that would be eligible to be listed under
Nasdaq Rule 5704, only two had a single creation unit

outstanding, and that the remaining funds have, on average, shares
outstanding equal to approximately 300 creation units. However, this
data does not establish that arbitrage opportunities would sufficiently
mitigate manipulation concerns for all series of Exchange Traded Fund
Shares, including those with only a single creation unit outstanding
and those overlying a portfolio of instruments that are illiquid.
    Finally, while the Exchange asserts that its surveillance
procedures and trading halt authority would provide for additional
investor protections by mitigating any abnormal trading that would
affect Exchange Traded Fund Shares prices, it does not offer any
explanation of the basis for that view or provide any supporting
information or evidence to support its conclusion. Notably, the
Exchange does not explain how any of its specific existing surveillance
procedures or administration of its trading halt authority effectively
address, in the absence of the Beneficial Holders Rule \27\ and under
the proposed replacement of the Minimum Shares Outstanding Rule,
manipulation concerns and other regulatory risks to fair and orderly
markets, investor protection, and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission is unable to assess whether the Exchange's assertion has
merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 25 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission identified all of these concerns in the OIP, but the
Exchange has not responded or provided additional data addressing these
concerns.\28\ As stated above, under the Commission's Rules of
Practice, the ``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued
thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization [`SRO'] that
proposed the rule change.'' \29\ The description of a proposed rule
change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of
its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently
detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding, and
any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\30\ The Commission concludes that,
because Nasdaq has not demonstrated that its proposal is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices or to protect
investors and the public interest, the Exchange has not met its burden
to demonstrate that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Exchange Act.\31\ For this reason, the Commission must disapprove
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See OIP, supra note 7. The commenter asserts that the
creation and redemption processes, which tap into the liquidity of
the underlying holdings, coupled with the enhanced disclosures
mandated under Rule 6c-11 under the 1940 Act, mitigate manipulation
concerns. See SIFMA Letter, supra note 14, at 3. However, neither
the Exchange nor the commenter explains why arbitrage opportunities
would sufficiently mitigate manipulation concerns for the full range
of ETFs, including ETFs overlying a portfolio of instruments that
are themselves illiquid, or where market interest in the ETF is not
sufficient to attract effective arbitrage activity. While the
Exchange and the commenter assert that certain disclosures under
Rule 6c-11 under the 1940 Act provide investors with transparency
into the holdings of the underlying portfolio and additional insight
into the effectiveness of an ETF's arbitrage (see Notice, supra note
3, 85 FR at 48012, 48015; SIFMA Letter, supra note 14, at 3-4; supra
note 13 and accompanying text), neither the Exchange nor the
commenter sufficiently explains how such disclosures might prevent
manipulation. In addition, while the commenter states that its
survey data showed that an ETF's number of shareholders, level of
assets, and liquidity tended to improve after three years of
operation as compared to one year, the commenter does not assert
that the survey addressed the concerns about potential manipulation
that the proposal raises, as described above.
    \29\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ In disapproving this proposed rule change, the Commission
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Although
the commenter (see SIFMA Letter, supra note 14, at 4) asserts that
the current Beneficial Holders Rule puts newer and smaller sponsors
at an unnecessary disadvantage to larger sponsors having the
enterprise-wide scale and distribution reach to gather assets in the
months after launch, neither the commenter nor the Exchange has
provided data to support this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not find,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\32\ that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange, and in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, that proposed rule change SR-NASDAQ-2020-017 is
disapproved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06987 Filed 4-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23404-23405]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4523-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Nevada; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nevada (FEMA-4523-DR), dated April 4, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 11, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the

State of Nevada is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance
limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance under Other Needs Assistance for
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event
declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April
4, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance
under Other Needs Assistance for all areas in the State of Nevada
(already designated for Individual Assistance, limited to the Crisis
Counseling Program and emergency protective measures [Category B]
not authorized under other Federal statutes, including direct
Federal assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09184 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39087]
[DOCID:fr11jy06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-411-000]

Trunkline LNG Company, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

July 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 30, 2006, Trunkline LNG Company, LLC
(TLNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1-A, Tenth Revised Sheet No. 5, to become effective
August 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10816 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1923-1924]
[FR Doc No: 2012-420]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 13771-001, Project No. 13763-001 et al.]

 Solia 8 Hydroelectric, LLC, FFP Missouri 13, LLC, et al.; Notice
of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application
Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

Solia 8 Hydroelectric, LLC...  Project No. 13771-001
FFP Missouri 13, LLC.........  Project No. 13763-001
Solia 5 Hydroelectric, LLC...  Project No. 13766-001
Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC...  Project No. 13767-001

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project Nos.: P-13771-001, P-13763-001, P-13766-001, P-13767-
001.
    c. Date Filed: November 16, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: Free Flow Power Corporation on behalf of its
subsidiary limited liability corporations (listed above and
collectively referred to below as ``Free Flow Power'').
    e. Name of Projects: Point Marion Lock and Dam Project, P-13771-
001; Grays Landing Lock and Dam Project, P-13763-001; Maxwell Lock and
Dam Project, P-13766-001; and Charleroi Lock and Dam Project, P-13767-
001.
    f. Location: At existing locks and dams owned and operated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania
(see table below for specific project locations). The projects would
occupy United States lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Project No.                        Projects                   County                 Township
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13771............................  Point Marion Lock and Dam    Fayette...............  Uniontown.
                                      Hydroelectric Project.
P-13763............................  Grays Landing Lock and Dam   Greene................  Greensboro.
                                      Hydroelectric Project.
P-13766............................  Maxwell Lock and Dam         Washington............  Brownsville.
                                      Hydroelectric Project.
P-13767............................  Charleroi Lock and Dam       Washington............  Charleroi, Monessen.
                                      Hydroelectric Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating
Officer, Free Flow Power, 239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114-2130;
(978) 283-2822; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Free Flow Power filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on

November 16, 2011. Free Flow Power provided public notice of its
request on November 16, 2011. In a letter dated January 5, 2012, the
Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Free Flow
Power's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the Pennsylvania
Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National
Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Free Flow Power as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Free Flow Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including
a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to
18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(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>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: January 5, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-420 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33128]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0367]

Special Local Regulations; Patriot's Point Fireworks; Mount
Pleasant, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for
the Patriot's Point Fireworks Display on July 4, 2021 from 8 p.m. until
10 p.m., to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways
during the event. The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary safety zone
during the Patriot's Point Fireworks Display occurring on the bank of
the Cooper River at Patriot's Point, in Charleston, South Carolina. The
temporary safety zone is necessary to protect vessels, spectators, and
the general public during the event. During the enforcement period, no
person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Charleston (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 100.704, Table 1 to Sec.  100.704, Item
No. (6), will be enforced from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Chad Ray,
Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulation in 33 CFR 100.704, Table 1 to Sec.  100.704, Item No.
(6), for the Patriot's Point Fireworks Display on July 4, 2021 from 8
p.m. to 10 p.m. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waterways during this event. The regulation in Sec.
100.704, Table 1 to Sec.  100.704, Item No. (6), specifies the location
of the regulated area for the Patriot's Point Fireworks Display, which
encompasses a portion of the Cooper River at Patriot's Point in
Charleston, South Carolina. During the enforcement periods, as
reflected in Sec.  100.704(c)(1), if you are the operator of a vessel
in the regulated area you must comply with directions of the COTP
Charleston or from his designated representative, including the Patrol
Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners,
and on-scene designated representatives.

    Dated: June 17, 2021.
J.D. Cole,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2021-13254 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 73687-73688]
[DOCID:fr03de08-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Agricultural Aircraft Operator
Certificate Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. Certain organizations may apply to perform
certification functions on behalf of the FAA. Standards have been
established for the certification of agricultural aircraft. The
information collected shows applicant compliance and eligibility for
certification by FAA.

DATES: Please submit comments by February 2, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Agricultural Aircraft Operator Certificate Application.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0049.
    Form(s): 8710-3.
    Affected Public: A total of 3,980 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 3.5 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 14,037 hours annually.
    Abstract: Standards have been established for the certification of
agricultural aircraft. The information collected shows applicant
compliance and eligibility for certification by FAA.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 24, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-28508 Filed 12-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M