[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35637-35640]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16117]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9980-97-OEI]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a new system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Environmental Information (OEI), Office of Enterprise Information
Programs (OEIP), eDiscovery Division, is giving notice that it proposes
to establish a new system of records pursuant to the provisions of the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). The new system of records will
contain information collected using the Agency's suite of tools that
search and preserve electronically stored information (ESI) in support
of eDiscovery requests, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or
other formal information requests. Exemptions for this system of
records will be included in the Agency's update of its Privacy Act
regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must
do so by. If no comments are received, the systems of records notice
will become effective by August 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2012-0882, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,

cloud or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods,
the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian K. Thompson, Acting Director,
eDiscovery Division, Office of Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; email, [email protected];
telephone number,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) plans to establish a Privacy Act system of records for
information collected using its eDiscovery (electronic discovery)
Enterprise Tool Suite. Depending on the specific need, the Agency will
use a combination of several electronic tools that together assist with
the preservation, search, processing, review and production of
electronically stored information (ESI). The tool suite will be used to
preserve, search, collect, sort and review ESI including email
messages, word processing documents, media files, spreadsheets,
presentations, scanned documents and data sets in support of legal
discovery. The Agency will also use these tools to search for ESI that
is responsive to requests for information submitted under FOIA or other
formal information requests.
    To minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being
stored in the system, strict access controls have been imposed. Access
to the tool suite containing records is restricted to a limited number
of authorized users with the appropriate security clearances and
password permissions. Access to the system is further limited by user
type. System administrators have full access to the tool suite,
including the ability to perform administrative functions. Other users
are provided a level of access to the tool suite that is commensurate
with their role in the system, allowing them to perform the functions
for which they are authorized. Authorized users include federal and
contract staff located throughout the country. The system is maintained
in secure areas and buildings with physical access controls. The
eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite is maintained by the Office of
Environmental Information and is stored on servers located in
Washington, DC, and Durham, NC. Data retrieved are stored on servers
and work stations throughout the country. The information contained in
the system can be wide-ranging and potentially include emails,
documents and other sources of ESI collected from custodians and may
contain personally identifiable information. The information in the
system will also contain the names and EPA email addresses of EPA
employees, contractors, and grantees who have been identified as
potential information custodians. Privacy information may be included
in the ESI collected and maintained in the system. Individuals for whom
records are maintained in the system include, but are not limited to,
those individuals who have been identified as potential information
custodians in a litigation, investigation, FOIA matter or other formal
information request and those individuals whose information may appear
in such records. The system will aid in protecting the privacy of
individuals from unwarranted disclosure by allowing authorized users of
the tool suite to identify files that contain privacy information to be
protected from disclosure. EPA will safeguard individuals' privacy in a
manner consistent with the Privacy Act, E-Government Act, OMB
directives and other federal requirements concerning privacy.
Accordingly, the privacy of individuals should not be affected.
SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER
    eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite, EPA-63.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
    Unclassified.

SYSTEM LOCATION:
    eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, eDiscovery Division, Office of Enterprise Information Programs,
Office of Environmental Information, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. Records are also maintained in Research Triangle
Park, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27709.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S):
    Greg Duke, eDiscovery Division, Office of Enterprise Information
Programs, Office of Environmental Information, MC 3PM50, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
    40 U.S.C. 11315 and 44 U.S.C. 3506.

PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:
    To support the document identification and collection processes for
eDiscovery, Freedom of Information Act requests and other formal
information requests.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
    Categories of individuals covered by this system include: (1) All
persons subject to a litigation hold due to a ``reasonable anticipation
of litigation'' as determined by EPA; (2) all persons deemed a
participant of past or present litigation, investigation or arbitration
where EPA is involved, including civil and criminal enforcement cases
and defensive litigation; and (3) individuals impacted by Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests, litigation or other cases in EPA.
    A wide variety of individuals are covered by the system, including
individuals who correspond with EPA; provide information to EPA that is
subject to discovery, a FOIA request or other formal information
request; or are the subject of litigation with EPA; individuals who
file complaints or petitions with EPA; and individuals involved in
matters with EPA as either plaintiffs or defendants in both civil and
criminal matters.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
     eDiscovery Litigation Hold Files. The litigation hold
files contain the names and email addresses of EPA employees and EPA
contractors, interns, or grantees who have been provided EPA email
addresses and who have been identified as custodians of information
that needs to be preserved in the anticipation of litigation. The
records in the system will include these individuals' names and EPA
email addresses which are entered into the system by designated EPA
employees responsible for the administration of litigation holds.
Information in the system includes litigation hold notices and answers
to certification questions. Reports may be generated from the system
that identify whether an individual is designated as a custodian of
hold-responsive information, as well as reports containing the
information received from individuals in response to questions asked
through the litigation hold system.
     eDiscovery Case Tracking Files. The case tracking files
contain information about the cases created in response to a
litigation, investigation, FOIA matter or other formal information
request. Case tracking files may contain the names, phone numbers,
organizations, and email addresses of EPA employees and EPA
contractors, interns, or grantees who have been identified as
custodians in a case or as points of contact for managing the case.
Information in the case tracking files may include the location of the
information to be searched, search terms and case notes

entered into the system by designated EPA employees or contractors
responsible for operating EPA's eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite.
     eDiscovery Collection Files. The collection files contain
information potentially responsive to a litigation, investigation, FOIA
matter or other formal information request. The Tool Suite may capture
many types of personally identifiable information depending on where
that information is stored, including an individual's name; work
address and telephone number; home address and telephone number; email
addresses; vehicle information; names of individuals associated with a
FOIA request or litigation hold; or other related information. The
collection files contain all data collected by the tools using the
search criteria and may contain, but not be limited to, correspondence
(e.g., case coordination reports; memoranda and other records of
communication, including electronic communication over email systems or
instant messaging among other EPA employees and/or personnel of other
federal agencies and outside parties and attachments to those messages
or communications); local/shared drive data; information collected or
compiled from EPA database systems; spreadsheets of data collections
often including personally identifiable information or law enforcement
data used to track the process of investigations or focus investigative
priorities; records relating to litigation by or against the United
States government; records relating to requests for EPA records other
than requests under the FOIA and the Privacy Act of 1974; legal
documents including complaints, summaries, affidavits, litigation
reports, motions, subpoenas and any other court filing or
administrative filing, or other related litigation documents;
documentary evidence; supporting documents related to the legal and
programmatic issues of a case; transcripts of interviews; regulatory
history (i.e., permits and reports generated as a result of normal
program activity); administrative record material and comments on
administrative records; technical support (reports generated to test
search criteria); investigative notes; reports requesting permission
and use; transcripts of tapes; records checks (personal history, police
information, fingerprint cards, photographs); property reports;
property obtained and retained by an examiner including documents,
personal property and documentary or other evidence; employment records
and information related to employment matters; claims and records
regarding discrimination, including employment and sex discrimination;
personnel matters; contracts and information relating to contracts;
manifests and other related investigative information.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
    EPA employees; employees of federal contractors; employees of other
federal agencies and of state, local, tribal and foreign agencies;
witnesses; informants; public source materials; and other persons who
may have information relevant to the search criteria.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES
OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
    EPA's General Routine Uses A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, and L apply
to this system. Please refer to https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/01/14/E8-445/amendment-to-general-routine-uses for a
full explanation of these routine uses (73 FR 2245).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:
    Records in the system are stored in database applications running
on computer servers.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:
    Litigation hold and case tracking files are assigned a case file
control number or case name. Information collected from individuals
pertaining to particular cases may be retrieved by names of
individuals, email addresses, and other unique identifiers.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:
    Records stored in the system are subject to records schedule 1012
and 0089.

ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:
    Computer records are maintained in a secure, password protected
computer system. Role-based access controls limit a user's access to
the information in the system. Users are provided access to information
in the system based on their need to know. Individuals working on a
particular matter will be given access to the information related to
that matter. The eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite is a password
protected system requiring all users log in to access the information
in the system. The system times out after a period of latency ensuring
a user re-authenticates their session with a username and password. The
system also maintains a user log that identifies and records persons
who access and use the system. Users of EPA systems are required to
complete security and privacy training on an annual basis to ensure
continued access to the system. All records are maintained in secure
areas and buildings with physical access controls.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
    Request for access must be made in accordance with the procedures
described in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.
Requesters will be required to provide adequate identification, such as
a driver's license, employee identification card or other identifying
document. Additional identification procedures may be required in some
instances.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
    Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be
changed and the corrective action sought. Complete EPA Privacy Act
procedures are described in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR
part 16.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
    Any individual who wants to know whether this system of records
contains a record about him or her should make a written request to the
Agency Privacy Officer, MC 2831T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:
    For those records within the system collected and maintained
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and/or for the
purpose of civil discovery, action or proceeding, 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5)
will apply, stating that ``nothing in this [Act] shall allow an
individual access to any information compiled in reasonable
anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.'' In addition, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), this system is exempt from the following
provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitations set forth in
that subsection: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H)
and (f)(2) through (5). Finally, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), when
records are contained in this system related to a criminal enforcement
proceeding, this system is exempt from the following provisions of the
Privacy Act, subject to the limitations set forth in that subsection: 5
U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G),
(e)(4)(H), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f)(2) through (f)(5) and (g).

HISTORY:
    None.

    Dated: May 30, 2018.
Steven Fine,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-16117 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20774-20776]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08151]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91579; File No. SR-Phlx-2021-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the
Current Pilot Program Related to Phlx Equity 4, Rule 3312 to the Close
of Business on October 20, 2021

April 15, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 14, 2021, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the current pilot program related
to Phlx Equity 4, Rule 3312 (Clearly Erroneous Transactions) to the
close of business on October 20, 2021.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current
pilot program related to Equity 4, Rule 3312, Clearly Erroneous
Transactions, to the close of business on October 20, 2021. The pilot
program is currently due to expire on April 20, 2021.
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to Equity 4, Rule 3312 that, among other things: (i) Provided
for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-
stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the
ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set
forth in the rule.\3\ Following this, on September 30, 2010, the
Exchange adopted changes to conform its Rule 3312 to Nasdaq's and BX's
rules 11890.\4\ In 2013, the Exchange adopted a provision designed to
address the operation of the Plan.\5\ Finally, in 2014, the Exchange
adopted two additional provisions providing that: (i) A series of
transactions in a particular security on one or more trading days may
be viewed as one event if all such transactions were effected based on
the same fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance
information resulting in a severe valuation error for all such
transactions; and (ii) in the event of any disruption or malfunction in
the operation of the electronic communications and trading facilities
of an Exchange, another SRO, or responsible single plan processor in
connection with the transmittal or receipt of a trading halt, an
Officer, acting on his or her own motion, shall nullify any transaction
that occurs after a trading halt has been declared by the primary
listing market for a security and before such trading halt has
officially ended according to the primary listing market.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56613 (September 16, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-076).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63023 (September 30,
2010), 75 FR 61802 (October 6, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-125).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68820 (February 1,
2013), 78 FR 9436 (February 8, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-12).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72434 (June 19,
2014), 79 FR 36110 (June 25, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes were originally scheduled to operate for a pilot
period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or
``LULD Plan'').\7\ In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment
to the LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.\8\ In light of that change, the Exchange amended Equity 4, Rule
3312 to untie the pilot program's effectiveness from that of the LULD
Plan and to extend the pilot's effectiveness to the close of business
on October 18, 2019.\9\ Subsequently, the Exchange amended Rule 3312 to
extend the pilot's

effectiveness to the close of business on April 20, 2021.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019) (approving Eighteenth Amendment
to LULD Plan).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85632 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16057 (April 17, 2019) (SR-Phlx-2019-14).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90205 (October 15,
2020), 85 FR 67022 (October 21, 2020) (SR-Phlx-2020-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Equity 4, Rule 3312 to extend
the pilot's effectiveness for a further six months until the close of
business on October 20, 2021. If the pilot period is not either
extended, replaced or approved as permanent, the prior versions of
paragraphs (a)(2)(C), (c)(1), (b)(i), and (b)(ii) shall be in effect,
and the provisions of paragraphs (g) through (i) shall be null and
void.\11\ In such an event, the remaining sections of Rule 3312 would
continue to apply to all transactions executed on the Exchange. The
Exchange understands that the other national securities exchanges and
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') will also file
similar proposals to extend their respective clearly erroneous
execution pilot programs, the substance of which are identical to Rule
3312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See notes 3--6, supra. The prior versions of paragraphs
(a)(2)(C), (c)(1), (b)(i), and (b)(ii) generally provided greater
discretion to the Exchange with respect to breaking erroneous
trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Equity 4,
Rule 3312. Extending the effectiveness of Rule 3312 for an additional
six months will provide the Exchange and other self-regulatory
organizations additional time to consider whether further amendments to
the clearly erroneous execution rules are appropriate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it is designed
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest and not to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just
and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency and
uniformity across markets concerning review of transactions as clearly
erroneous. The Exchange believes that extending the clearly erroneous
execution pilot under Equity 4, Rule 3312 for an additional six months
would help assure that the determination of whether a clearly erroneous
trade has occurred will be based on clear and objective criteria, and
that the resolution of the incident will occur promptly through a
transparent process. The proposed rule change would also help assure
consistent results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S.
equities markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the
protection of investors and the public interest. Based on the
foregoing, the Exchange believes the amended clearly erroneous
executions rule should continue to be in effect on a pilot basis while
the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations consider whether
further amendments to these rules are appropriate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure
the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous
execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while the Exchange and
other self-regulatory organizations consider whether further amendments
to these rules are appropriate. The Exchange understands that the other
national securities exchanges and FINRA will also file similar
proposals to extend their respective clearly erroneous execution pilot
programs. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure
consistency across market centers without implicating any competitive
issues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the current clearly erroneous execution pilot program to
continue uninterrupted, without any changes, while the Exchange and the
other national securities exchanges consider a permanent proposal for
clearly erroneous execution reviews. For this reason, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2021-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2021-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2021-23 and should be submitted on
or before May 12, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.

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

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-08151 Filed 4-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 33475]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Docket Nos.              File date    Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP16-10-000...............    5-13-2022  Lynda Majors.
    2. P-14803-000...............    5-23-2022  FERC Staff.\1\
    3. P-14803-000...............    5-24-2022  FERC Staff.\2\
Exempt:
    1. CP22-17-000...............    5-11-2022  State of Texas Governor
                                                 Greg Abbott.
    2. CP16-10-000...............    4-15-2022  U.S. Senator Mark R.
                                                 Warner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Emailed comments dated 5/22/22 from William E. Simpson II.
\2\ Emailed comments dated 5/22/22 from William E. Simpson II.

    Dated: May 26, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11830 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Appendix H  2,4 D Swimmer Exposures Spreadsheet H1  Acute Exposures at 4 ppm Dermal Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Concentration in Water ( mg/ l) Exposed Surface Area ( cm2) Exposure Time ( Hours/ day) Kp ( cm/ hr) Conversion factor ( L/ 1000 cm3) Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ BW) Acute MOE Acid Child  22 kg 4 9000 3 0.000025 0.001 0.00012 545926 DMA Child 4 9000 3 0.000013 0.001 0.00006 1041843 BEE Child 4 9000 3 0.0171 0.001 0.08 798 Ingestion Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Concentration in Water ( mg/ l) Ingestion Rate( L/ hr) Exposure Time ( Hours/ day) Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ BW) Acute MOE All Child  22 kg 4 0.05 3 0.0273 2457 Combined Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Acute Combined MOE Acid Child  22 kg 2446 DMA Child 2451 BEE Child 602 Notes Kp values are from Table 2 3 of the USFS Risk Assessment for 2,4 D The Acute NOAEL is 67 mg/ kg/ day for children Appendix H  2,4 D Swimmer Exposures Spreadsheet H2  Acute Exposures at 2 ppm Dermal Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Concentration in Water ( mg/ l) Exposed Surface Area ( cm2) Exposure Time ( Hours/ day) Kp ( cm/ hr) Conversion factor ( L/ 1000 cm3) Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ BW) Acute MOE Acid Child  22 kg 2 9000 3 0.000025 0.001 0.00006 1091852 DMA Child 2 9000 3 0.000013 0.001 0.00003 2083687 BEE Child 2 9000 3 0.0171 0.001 0.04 1596 Ingestion Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Concentration in Water ( mg/ l) Ingestion Rate( L/ hr) Exposure Time ( Hours/ day) Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ BW) Acute MOE All Child  22 kg 2 0.05 3 0.0136 4913 Combined Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Acute Combined MOE Acid Child  22 kg 4891 DMA Child 4902 BEE Child 1205 Notes Kp values are from Table 2 3 of the USFS Risk Assessment for 2,4 D The Acute NOAEL is 67 mg/ kg/ day for children The Actute NOAEL is 25 mg/ kg/ day for adults Appendix H  2,4 D Swimmer Exposures Spreadsheet H3  Short Term Exposures at 4 ppm Dermal Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Concentration in Water ( mg/ l) Exposed Surface Area ( cm2) Exposure Time ( Hours/ day) Kp ( cm/ hr) Conversion factor ( L/ 1000 cm3) Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ BW) Short Term MOE Acid Adult  60 kg 4 21000 3 0.000025 0.001 0.00011 238095 Acid Child  22 kg 4 9000 3 0.000025 0.001 0.00012 203704 DMA Adult 4 21000 3 0.000013 0.001 0.00006 454380 DMA Child 4 9000 3 0.000013 0.001 0.00006 388748 BEE Adult 4 21000 3 0.0171 0.001 0.07 348 BEE Child 4 9000 3 0.0171 0.001 0.08 298 Ingestion Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Concentration in Water ( mg/ l) Ingestion Rate( L/ hr) Exposure Time ( Hours/ day) Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ BW) Short Term MOE All Adult  60 kg 4 0.05 3 0.0100 2500 All Child  22 kg 4 0.05 3 0.0273 917 Combined Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Short Term Combined MOE Acid Adult  60 kg 2474 Acid Child  22 kg 913 DMA Adult 2486 DMA Child 915 BEE Adult 306 BEE Child 225 Notes Kp values are from Table 2 3 of the USFS Risk Assessment for 2,4 D The short term NOAEL is 25 mg/ kg/ day for children based upon maternal effects observed during the developmental study. The short term NOAEL is 25 mg/ kg/ day for adults based upon developmental effects observed during the developmental study. Appendix H  2,4 D Swimmer Exposures Spreadsheet H4  Short Term Exposures at 2 ppm Dermal Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Concentration in Water ( mg/ l) Exposed Surface Area ( cm2) Exposure Time ( Hours/ day) Kp ( cm/ hr) Conversion factor ( L/ 1000 cm3) Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ BW) Short Term MOE Acid Adult  60 kg 2 21000 3 0.000025 0.001 0.00005 476190 Acid Child  22 kg 2 9000 3 0.000025 0.001 0.00006 407407 DMA Adult 2 21000 3 0.000013 0.001 0.00003 908760 DMA Child 2 9000 3 0.000013 0.001 0.00003 777495 BEE Adult 2 21000 3 0.0171 0.001 0.04 696 BEE Child 2 9000 3 0.0171 0.001 0.04 596 Ingestion Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Concentration in Water ( mg/ l) Ingestion Rate( L/ hr) Exposure Time ( Hours/ day) Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ BW) Short Term MOE All Adult  60 kg 2 0.05 3 0.0050 5000 All Child  22 kg 2 0.05 3 0.0136 1833 Combined Exposure 2,4 D Form Exposed Person Short Term Combined MOE Acid Adult  60 kg 4948 Acid Child  22 kg 1825 DMA Adult 4973 DMA Child 1829 BEE Adult 611 BEE Child 450 Notes Kp values are from Table 2 3 of the USFS Risk Assessment for 2,4 D The short term NOAEL is 25 mg/ kg/ day for children based upon maternal effects observed during the developmental study. The short term NOAEL is 25 mg/ kg/ day for adults based upon developmental effects observed during the developmental study. Data Source 1 2 3 4 5 6AVG ( 1 to 6) DAT PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.2 3.1 3.6 2 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.3 2.1 1.8 2.9 3 3.7 3.4 3.3 2.6 1.1 0.84 2.2 4 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.0 0.47 0.30 1.4 5 3.3 2.7 2.4 1.4 0.16 0.08 0.9 6 3.0 2.4 2.0 0.94 0.04 0.02 0.5 AVG 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.6 1.6 1.5 2.2 GM 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.3 0.72 0.50 1.8 Data SourceForm Location Slope Factor 1 BEE NC  0.013 2 DMA NC App 1  0.025 3 DMA NC App 2  0.034 4 DMA ND App 1  0.069 5 DMA ND App 2  0.215 6 DMA MN Lake  0.26 AVG  0.10


[Federal Register: March 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 14206-14207]
[DOCID:fr21mr06-71]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0031; FRL-8047-4]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--
April 2006

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of one meeting (via conference call) of
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee.

DATES: The conference call will be held on Thursday, April 6, 2006 from
2 p.m. to 4 p.m. eastern time, and may adjourn early if all business is
finished. Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral
presentations during the call will be accepted up to 1 business day
before the conference call.

ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference call will be by
teleconference only--meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the
public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the calls from
Lorelei Kowalski, whose contact information is listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0031, by one of
the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0031.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0031.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--February 2006 Docket,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0031.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-
0031.

    Note: This is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0031. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The

http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the

body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific

Counselors, Executive Committee--February 2006 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the ORD
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Lorelei Kowalski, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice
mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation during the conference call may contact
Lorelei Kowalski, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the
contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be
limited to a total of three minutes.
    The purpose of this conference call is to review, discuss, and
potentially approve a draft report prepared by the BOSC Water Quality
Subcommittee. Proposed agenda items for the conference call include,
but are not limited to: Discussion of the Subcommittee's draft
responses to the charge questions, and general report content. The
conference call is open to the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Lorelei Kowalski at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,

please contact Lorelei Kowalski, preferably at least 10 days prior to
the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: March 14, 2006.
Kevin Y. Teichman,
Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E6-4067 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 26361]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of ISO New
England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.:

Joint Inter-Regional Planning Task Force/Electric System Planning
Working Group

May 16, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time

Electric System Planning Working Group

May 30, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
June 13, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
June 27, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders and will be
held at: NYISO's offices, Rensselaer, NY.
    Further information may be found at www.nyiso.com
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER08-1281, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL10-52, Central Transmission, LLC v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER10-253 and EL10-14, Primary Power, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-69, Primary Power LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1178, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-102-000, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-193-000, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER13-195, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-196-000, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER13-198, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C
Docket No. ER13-397, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-673, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C
Docket No. ER13-703, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-887, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1052, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1054, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 30, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10638 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 56868]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23514]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for O'Hare
International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and
Newark Liberty International Airport for the Summer 2012 Scheduling
Season

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).

ACTION: Notice of submission deadline.

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

SUMMARY: Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline
of October 13, 2011, for Summer 2012 flight schedules at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport (ORD), New York's John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK), and Newark Liberty International Airport
(EWR) in accordance with the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) Worldwide Slot Guidelines. The deadline coincides with the
schedule submission deadline for the IATA Schedules Conference for the
Summer 2012 scheduling season.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has designated ORD as an IATA Level
2 airport, JFK as a Level 3 airport, and EWR as a Level 3 airport.
Scheduled operations at JFK and EWR are currently limited by FAA Orders
until a final Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport
(RIN 2120-AJ89) becomes effective but not later than October 26,
2013.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport, 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008) as amended 76 FR 18620 (Apr. 4,
2011); Operating Limitations at Newark Liberty International
Airport, 73 FR 29550 (May 21, 2008) as amended 76 FR 18618 (Apr. 4,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is primarily concerned about planned passenger and cargo
operations during peak hours, but carriers may submit schedule plans
for the entire day. At ORD, the peak hours are 0700 to 2100 Central
Time (1200-0200 UTC) and at EWR and JFK from 0600 to 2300 Eastern Time
(1000-0300 UTC). Carriers should submit schedule information in
sufficient detail including, at minimum, the operating carrier, flight
number, scheduled time of operation, frequency, and effective dates.
IATA standard schedule information format and data elements (Standard
Schedules Information Manual) may be used.
    The U.S. summer scheduling season for these airports is from March
25, 2012, through October 27, 2012, in recognition of the IATA
scheduling season dates. The FAA understands there may be differences
in schedule times due to different U.S. daylight saving time dates, and
the FAA will accommodate these to the extent possible.

DATES: Schedules must be submitted no later than October 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be submitted by mail to the Slot
Administration Office, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hawks, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
267-7971; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2011.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2011-23514 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28215-28217]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11958]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750; FRL-9927-58-OAR]
RIN 2060-AQ60

Reconsideration Petition From Dyno Nobel Inc. on the New Source
Performance Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants; Final Action

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action denying petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This action provides notice that on May 11, 2015, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Gina McCarthy,
signed a letter denying a petition for reconsideration of the final New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Nitric Acid Plants published in
the Federal Register on August 14, 2012. (77 FR 48433)

DATES: Effective May 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Nathan Topham, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-3207; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration,
and the letter denying the petition for reconsideration are available
in the docket the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0750. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. This Federal Register
document, the petition for reconsideration, and the letter denying the
petition can also be found on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

II. Judicial Review

    Any petitions for review of the letter and enclosure denying the
petition for reconsideration described in this document must be filed
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by July 17, 2015.

III. Description of Action

A. Background

    The initial Nitric Acid Plants NSPS were promulgated on December
23, 1971 (36 FR 24881) and codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart G
pursuant to section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Pursuant to section
111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed the NSPS three times over the past
few decades. Based on the results of the third review, which we
completed in August 2012, we determined it was appropriate to revise
the NSPS. The revised NSPS were published in the Federal Register on
August 14, 2012 (77 FR 48433). The revised NSPS (also referred to as
the ``final rule'' in this document) included a change in the nitrogen
oxides (NOX) emission limit, from 3.0 pounds of
NOX per ton of nitric acid production (3.0 lb/T) on a 3-hour
basis to 0.5 lb/T on a 30-day average basis, and additional testing and
monitoring requirements. The final rule applies to new, modified or
reconstructed nitric acid production units (NAPU) that commence
construction, modification or reconstruction after October 14, 2011.
    Throughout the rulemaking process, we received comments, data and
information that supported these revisions. This information is
available in the docket for this action. The revisions were proposed on
October 14, 2011 (76 FR 63878). We received additional data and
comments during the comment period. These data and comments were
considered and analyzed and, where appropriate, revisions to the NSPS
were made and incorporated into the final rule published on August 14,
2012.
    On October 10, 2012, Dyno Nobel Inc. (DNI) submitted a petition for
reconsideration of the final rule for nitric acid plants. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, a petitioner seeking reconsideration must show
that the objection or objections raised in its reconsideration petition
``is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' In the EPA's
view, an objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule
only if it provides substantial support for the argument that the
promulgated regulation should be revised.
    After carefully considering the petition and supporting
information, the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied the petition
for reconsideration on May 11, 2015, in a letter to the petitioner. The
EPA denied the petition because the information and analysis submitted
by DNI is not of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, in that
it does not demonstrate that the rule should be reconsidered. A summary
of the petition issues and the EPA's responses are provided below. The
letter from Administrator McCarthy and the accompanying enclosure,
which are available in the docket for this action, explain in greater
detail the issues presented in the petition, the EPA's responses to
those issues, and the EPA's reasons for the denial.

B. Summary of Petition and the EPA's Responses

    The main issues raised by DNI in their petition for reconsideration
are the following: They believe the EPA should have established a
subcategory and a different emissions limit for modified or
reconstructed nitric acid plants that use non-selective catalytic
reduction (NSCR); and they argue the EPA did not meet the legal
requirement of having representative emission data to establish a new
emission limit.
    Regarding the petitioner's argument that the EPA should establish a
subcategory for modified or reconstructed plants that use NSCR, we have
several reasons why we disagree with this request.
    First, the EPA believes it is inappropriate to establish
subcategories based on differences in control technologies, so it is
inappropriate to establish a subcategory for plants using NSCR.
    Second, regarding the petitioner's argument that the EPA did not
meet the legal requirement of having representative emission data to
set an emission limit, we believe the agency had ample test data to
support selective catalytic reduction as the best system of emission
reduction and to establish a revised emission limit.
    Third, although some units with NSCR may not be able to meet the
limit without improving their controls, based on available data we
believe it is feasible for some units with NSCR to comply with this
NSPS without the need for any additional controls as some existing
units with NSCR are already achieving the NSPS emission limit.
    Finally, we believe other units with NSCR that are modified or
reconstructed, could comply with the NSPS limit by improving their
controls at reasonable costs.
    Therefore, based on our review and evaluation of all issues raised
by the petitioner and relevant available data and information, we have
concluded that reconsideration is not warranted.

    Dated: May 11, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-11958 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request 1887.02 1 ( a). Title ICR: Personal Exposure of High Risk Subpopulations to Fine Particles EPA ICR Number: 1887.02 OMB Control Number: 2080 0058 1 ( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract Approval was granted in 1999 for a series of four studies of personal exposure of high risk subpopulations to particles and associated gases. Three of these studies have been completed, but the fourth is still continuing. The OMB approved questionnaire expires July 31, 2002. This ICR requests a renewal for an additional three years. There is no new burden and no additional participants in the studies beyond what was calculated in the original ICR 1887.01.

The studies, which have been recommended by the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS) under a directive from Congress, are considered necessary to support the proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) for fine particles ( PM 2.5). The information will be used by scientists within ORD and external to the Agency to determine the relationship between personal exposure, indoor concentrations, and concentrations measured at central monitoring site for one or more high risk subpopulations, including particularly persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( COPD) and persons with cardiovascular disease. The data will also be used by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) in their review of the basis for the proposed PM 2.5 regulation. The information will appear in the form of final EPA reports, journal articles, and will also be made publicly available in an electronic data base.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2 ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection A number of epidemiological studies have linked daily mortality and morbidity statistics with increased particle concentrations measured outdoors. The mortality studies have taken place in many different cities around the world and appear to agree surprisingly well, showing an increase of a few percent in deaths per 50 ìg/ m3 increase in outdoor air particles, with no apparent threshold concentration. From a study of death certificates on days with higher pollution, the affected persons appear to be those with existing respiratory disease ( particularly those with 2 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD) and cardiovascular disease. Although the studies have often included other outdoor pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, sulfates, and nitrogen oxides, the strongest relationships have generally been found to be with particles. Modeling studies have often suggested that it is the fine particles ( less than 2.5 or 3.5 micrometers in diameter) that are the more likely agent. These findings have led the US EPA to propose a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) for particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ( PM 2.5) of 65 ìg/ m3 for 24 hours ( to be exceeded no more than once per year) and an annual standard of 15 ìg/ m3.

However, a number of studies of personal exposure to particles have shown little or no correlation of the personal exposure with concurrent outdoor air concentrations. This has led to concern for the adequacy of the scientific underpinning of the EPA standard. This concern was recognized by Congress in FY 1998 and resulted in their providing an increased budget to EPA to study the health effects of particles. Congress specified that the EPA should be guided in its research by the recommendations of a special National Academy of Sciences study of research needs. The resulting NAS report laid out a " portfolio" of recommended research over the next 13 years. In particular, the NAS report found that the relationship of the exposure of the high risk subpopulations to outdoor concentrations was unknown, and recommended about three studies in different areas around the country to improve our knowledge of this relationship. The NAS estimated the cost of each of these studies as about $ 1M/ year for three years, or a total of $ 9M over the three years.

Concurrently, EPA's Office of Research and Development ( ORD), through its National Exposure Research Laboratory ( NERL) had been planning a study along exactly the lines recommended by the NAS. A Request for Applications ( RFA) was published in the Commerce Business Daily ( CBD) on April 15, 1998, inviting proposals to study the exposure to fine particles of high risk subpopulations. An external peer review panel reviewed the proposals and found that three were of high scientific value worthy of funding. EPA has funded all three proposals as competitive cooperative agreements. The three principal institutions include the Harvard School of Public Health, the New York University School of Medicine, and the University of Washington. In addition, EPA funded a fourth study using in house personnel with contractual support. All four studies used the same basic questionnaire, approved by OMB in July of 1999 and due to expire July 31, 2002.

The goal of these studies is to determine the parameters of the relationship between personal exposure to particles, as measured by a personal monitor, and outdoor concentrations as measured at a central site, for a group of persons considered to be at high risk due to their respiratory or cardiovascular conditions. Of particular interest is the portion of the subjects' exposure that is due to outdoor sources. Since most persons are indoors most of the time, this requires measuring the rate at which outdoor particles are entering the home and also studying the parameters, such as the penetration factor through the building envelope and the deposition rate 3 of particles on interior surfaces, that affect the ultimate fate of the outdoor particles. Also, since it has been found that personal exposures differ from indoor concentrations, it is necessary to measure indoor concentrations at some location in the home as well as the personal and outdoor concentrations. Additionally, since it is still not certain that particles alone are responsible for the increased mortality on high pollution days, gases that are associated with particles, such as carbon monoxide ( CO), nitrogen dioxide ( NO 2), and sulfur dioxide ( SO 2) are being measured concurrently with the particles. Since the particle sizes associated with higher morbidity and mortality are also unclear, both fine and coarse particles will be measured. Fine particles are those less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter ( A. D.); coarse particles are those between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in A. D.

One previous study of personal, indoor, and outdoor concentrations of particles has been carried out by EPA: the Particle TEAM ( PTEAM) Study, carried out in 1990 in Riverside, CA. The questionnaire for that study was approved by OMB and has been used as the basis for developing the questionnaire for this study. Based on extensive analysis of the PTEAM questionnaire, some questions have been found not to be as useful as could be wished and have been omitted from the present questionnaire, thus reducing the burden on the respondent.

2 ( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The data will show how well a central site can represent the actual exposure of selected members of the population most at risk. Since the proposed EPA regulation of PM 2.5 includes requirements for a large number of monitoring sites throughout the country, a knowledge of how well those sites can do their job is clearly of great practical utility. The main users of the data include scientists studying personal exposure to airborne pollutants, Federal and State regulators responsible for administering their respective laws regarding air pollution, and the regulated community.

Within EPA, users of the data include measurement scientists and modelers within ORD, and program analysts and regulators within OAQPS. Also within ORD, the office responsible for preparing the Particle Criteria Document, the National Center for Exposure Assessment ( NCEA), will abstract the data for use in the Criteria Document.

State agencies responsible for running the State programs on monitoring air pollution will also scrutinize the data for information relevant to siting their stations.

In the private sector, members of the regulated community such as the American Petroleum Institute ( API) and the Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) will use the data to study the impact of their member companies on outdoor air pollution and the associated impact on personal exposure. 4 3( a) Non duplication Two earlier pilot studies of the exposure of COPD patients have been carried out, by the Harvard School of Public Health under the sponsorship of the API and the EPRI. The first study, in Nashville, included just 10 patients who were followed for only 6 days, 3 days with PM 2.5 measurements and 3 days with PM 10 measurements. The number of subjects was too small and the number of days too short for reaching any conclusions, but the study served the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of the approach. The second study, in Boston, included a larger number of subjects ( 18) and a greater number of days ( 6 18). However, the NAS has emphasized that studies should be done in many different areas of the country, due to the different sources, aerosol types, and meteorology encountered in different areas. Therefore the present set of studies has been designed to have fairly wide geographic coverage, with studies having been completed in Boston, New York, Atlanta, Fresno, Raleigh and Seattle. Two studies that remain in progress are taking place in Anaheim and Seattle.

Since other organizations are planning similar studies, EPA has set up a coordinating committee including the other sponsoring agencies and also the principal investigators of the associated universities to be sure that no duplication occurs. Private organizations such as API and EPRI are also represented on the committee. This committee held its first meeting in Boston in August, 1998, and the members are continuing to correspond and coordinate their studies closely. For example, the Health Effects Institute and the EPA collaborated on pilot studies in Boston and upper New York State to test the sampling methodology thoroughly before employing the instruments in the field. Also, the California Air Resources Board has contributed to carry out additional studies in Los Angeles, and EPRI added resources for additional pollutants to be measured in the Atlanta study.

3( b) Public Notice EPA solicited public comment on this request for a renewal of its information collection plans by publishing a notice in the Federal Register on April 2, 2002 ( 67 FR 15565). No comments were received.

3( c) Consultations We have consulted on an informal basis with our respondents regarding the burden of the study, both from wearing the personal monitors and providing space in the home for the indoor monitors, and from answering the questionnaire. Comments were received indicating that the burden of wearing the monitors was sometimes noticeable; that it was sometimes difficult to keep children from exploring the area of the home reserved for indoor monitoring; and that answering the questionnaire was sometimes slightly boring. However, no respondents ( out of more than 200 so far) have broken off their data collection before the planned end of their participation, so we 5 infer that the burden of the study is being well accepted by all respondents, who are of course all volunteers with no compulsion to participate.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Since this is a one time study, this section is not applicable.

3( e) General Guidelines We are adhering to OMB's general guidelines as described on page A 12 of EPA's ICR Handbook.

3( f) Confidentiality The identity of the participants will remain confidential. All questionnaires and other data for each person have been identified with a unique number. All hard copy documents have this number as their identification, as do all entries in the electronic database. A single hard copy document relating the name of the person to the number is kept under lock and key by a single qualified individual at each of the institutions carrying out the study.

3( g) Sensitive Questions There are no questions of a sensitive nature included on the questionnaire.

4 Respondents and Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents have been and will be patients selected from certain diagnostic categories by cooperating physicians.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items The data items requested are contained in the attached copy of the questionnaire and the associated instructions.

( ii) Respondent Activities Of the six activities listed in the 1995 PRA Definition of " Burden," ( 3502. ( 2)) and the 6 nine activities listed in OMB's Definition of Burden in OMB's Final Rules ( 5 CFR 1320.3( b)( 1) only the following three are relevant:

1. Reviewing instructions.

2. Completing and reviewing the collection of information.

3. Transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

Our estimates of the amount of time it will take each respondent for each of these three activities are contained in our tables estimating burden.

5 The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities The major agency activities associated with these studies are:

1. Monitoring progress of universities and contractors on main studies. 8a. Reviewing progress reports. 8b. Reviewing costs and schedule compliance. 8c. Providing funds to the researchers on an annual basis.

2. Assisting in field sampling and analysis ( including training of Agency personnel).

3. Analyzing data.

4. Writing, editing, and publishing final reports.

5. Creating and maintaining a publicly available electronic data base.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Pretesting of the collection instrument was performed on several members of the university research teams. The time required to answer the questions was recorded and forms the basis of the estimates in the following tables.

Data are keyed into IBM compatible PCs. Data quality have been and will be checked by 100% re keying of the questionnaire items. 7 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility This item is not applicable to this ICR.

5( d) Collection Schedule The collection schedule varies somewhat between the three university consortia and the EPA/ contractor study, but in all cases the household questionnaire is administered on the first day that the technicians arrive at the house. The daily 24 hour recall questionnaire is then administered on each day that the technicians collect the used personal monitor and provide a new monitor to the participant. In most cases, the respondent has been or will be monitored for between 6 and 14 successive days. In some cases, the respondent will be monitored again in a second season. The exact number of days that each respondent will be monitored depends on the schedule of the monitoring team and the respondent, and cannot be provided in this document.

6 Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6 ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Table 1 provides our estimate of the respondent burden according to the three relevant categories appearing in OMB's final rules: reviewing instructions, completing the information collection, and transmitting/ disclosing the information.

For reviewing the instructions, we assumed approximately 6 minutes per person. Based on our pretest, we found that the time to complete the questionnaire was approximately 12 minutes; we have assumed 24 minutes to allow for somewhat slower responses from our elderly population. We allowed an additional 6 minutes for transmitting/ disclosing the information to the technician, although if there were no problems with filling out the questionnaire this activity ( handing over the questionnaire) would take essentially no time. Thus we estimate the total time burden per day to be 36 minutes ( 0.6 h) per respondent. It should be noted that this table summarizes the total burden for all respondents, not just those remaining to be monitored.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs Since participation is voluntary and an incentive payment is offered, there are no respondent costs or capital costs associated with the study.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost For the five Agency activities identified in Section 5, we have estimated an Agency burden and cost as shown in Table 2. Most items are self explanatory. However, we note that we have 8 placed the extramural funding of $ 6M into Item 1c, Provision of Funds to Research Entities. Since each of the four consortia/ contractors has a different breakout of labor categories and salaries, and since each of the consortia but one includes several subcontractors, it has not been feasible to provide a full breakout by category, labor hours, and costs. However, each lead University investigator has broken out his own labor costs by category and this information is included in Table 3. Again, it should be noted that these tables provide the total cost for all four studies; most of this cost has already been borne.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The estimated burden per respondent was multiplied by the number of respondents to arrive at an estimate of the 3 year total and average annual respondent burden ( Table 1).

6( e) Bottom Line Burden and Cost Tables Tables 1 and 2 contain the total estimated respondent burden and Agency burden and costs.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden There is no change in the total burden originally estimated in ICR 1887.01.

6( g) Burden Statement The average total respondent burden is estimated to be 20.1 hours per person per year. This estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, collecting and recording information, and transmitting the information to those administering the questionnaire.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 9 Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OP Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822T), 401 M St., S. W., Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR No. 1887.02 and OMB Control Number 2080 0058 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27956-27958]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0466]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Town of Hamburg Fireworks, Lake Erie, Hamburg, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of the launch site located
near Woodlawn Beach, Hamburg, NY. This safety zone is intended to
restrict vessels from portions of Lake Erie during the Town of Hamburg
fireworks display. The safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and
vessels from potential hazards associated with a fireworks display.
Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July
3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0466 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Sean Dolan, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for
good cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard
with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM.
Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period
to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by
inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels
from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish safety zones under 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C.
1231), 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone prior to, during, and
immediately after the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10:00 p.m. through 10:30
p.m. on July 3, 2019. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
of Lake Erie at Woodlawn Beach, Hamburg, NY contained within a 420-foot
radius of: 42[deg]47'29.88'' N, 078[deg]51'18.61'' W.
    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the
fireworks event takes place. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion
that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate
that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere
with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant
or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy
issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small
and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has
been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions
on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be
minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit
through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60](a) in
Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0466 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0466   Safety Zone; Town of Hamburg Fireworks, Lake Erie,
Hamburg, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake
Erie; Hamburg, NY contained within a 420-foot radius of:
42[deg]47'29.88'' N, 078[deg]51'18.61'' W.
    (b) Enforcement period. The regulation in this section will be
enforced from 10:00 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16 or alternatively they may contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo
via landline at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given permission to
enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions
given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: June 11, 2019.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2019-12674 Filed 6-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P