[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40409-40410]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0239; FRL-9998-02-Region 5]

Adequacy Status of the Columbus, Ohio Area for the Submitted 2015
Ozone Standard Maintenance Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of finding of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the EPA is notifying the public that we have
found the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the 2015
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) maintenance plan
for the Columbus, Ohio area (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking
Counties) adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations
under the Clean Air Act. On April 23, 2019, the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted a 2015 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan
for the Columbus area, which included VOC and NOX MVEBs for
2023 and 2030. As a result of our finding of adequacy, the MVEBs from
the submitted maintenance plan must be used by state and Federal
agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects
conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) as required by the Clean
Air Act.

DATES: This finding is applicable August 29, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), Air
Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Background

    Today's notice is an announcement of a finding that we have already
made. On April 23, 2019, OEPA submitted to EPA a plan for maintaining
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Columbus area. This plan included MVEBs for
VOC and NOX for the years 2023 and 2030. On April 23, 2019,
EPA sent a letter to OEPA transmitting our finding that the 2023 and
2030 MVEBs contained in the 2015 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the
Columbus area are adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
Receipt of these MVEBs was announced on EPA's transportation conformity
website: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/adequacy-review-state-implementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity. The
finding and other relevant information are also available on EPA's
transportation conformity website.
    The 2023 MVEBs for the Columbus area are 29.28 tons per day (tpd)
of NOX

and 28.67 tpd of VOCs. The 2030 MVEBs for the Columbus area are 20.98
tpd of NOX and 22.03 tpd of VOCs.
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality
implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether they conform. Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from
EPA's completeness review, and is also a separate action from EPA's
evaluation of and decision whether to approve a proposed SIP revision.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: July 30, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-17348 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71155-71158]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27093]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0538; FRL-9194-01-OSCPP]

Mefentrifluconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
mefentrifluconazole in or on banana and coffee, green bean. BASF
Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 15, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 14, 2022
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0538, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. 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 OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns relating to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide customer service via
email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC
services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0538 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 14, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0538, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting

comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to
be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 21, 2020 (85 FR 82998) (FRL-
10016-93), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0E8849) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 22709-3528. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
mefentrifluconazole in or on banana at 1.5 parts per million (ppm) and
coffee at 0.4 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by BASF Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the
docket for this action, docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0538 at,
https://www.regulations.gov. One comment from an anonymous citizen was
received in response to the notice of filing (NOF). The Agency response
is listed in Unit IV.C.
    With respect to the subject action, the proposed tolerance levels
were not altered, but the commodity definition for coffee was revised.
The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

A. Statutory Background

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for mefentrifluconazole, including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with mefentrifluconazole
follows.

B. Aggregate Risk Assessment

    In an effort to streamline Federal Register publications, EPA is
directing readers to certain sections of Federal Register notices for
previous tolerance rulemakings for the same pesticide that contain
information that has not changed in the current risk assessment. To
that end, on June 28, 2019, EPA published in the Federal Register a
final rule establishing a tolerance for residues of mefentrifluconazole
in or on many livestock, corn, fruit, grain, nut and vegetable
commodities based on the Agency's conclusion that aggregate exposure to
mefentrifluconazole is safe for the general population, including
infants and children. See 84 FR 30939 (FRL-9994-51). Please refer to
the following sections of the aforementioned tolerance rulemaking that
contain information that has remained the same under the current risk
assessment for this rulemaking: Units III.A (Toxicological Profile);
III.B (Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern); III.C
(Exposure Assessment), except as explained in the next paragraph; and
III.D (Safety Factor for Infants and Children).
    Updates to exposure assessment. The Agency conducted an updated
risk assessment to evaluate exposure to residues of mefentrifluconazole
on banana and coffee. EPA's acute and chronic dietary (food and
drinking water) exposure assessments have been updated to include the
additional exposure from use of mefentrifluconazole on banana and
coffee. As to residue levels in food, a partially refined chronic
dietary exposure and risk assessment was conducted assuming 100 percent
crop treated (PCT) and using average field-trial residues for some
commodities and tolerance-level residues for other commodities (banana
and coffee). There will be no U.S. registrations for use of
mefentrifluconazole on banana and coffee, and there is no proposed new
residential use. Therefore, EPA's assessments of dietary exposure from
drinking water and non-dietary (i.e., residential) exposure, as well as
cancer classification and cumulative effects from substances with a
common mechanism of toxicity, have not changed and are described in the
June 2019 tolerance rulemaking.
    Assessment of aggregate risks. Acute aggregate risk estimates are
equal to acute dietary (food and drinking water) risk estimates, which
are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD): The exposure estimate is 5.6% of the aPAD at the
95th percentile of exposure for females 13 to 49 years old, which is
the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate. Chronic
aggregate risk estimates are equal to chronic dietary (food and
drinking water) risk estimates, which are below the Agency's level of
concern of 100% of the chronic population adjusted does (cPAD): The
exposure estimate is 82% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old,
which is the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate.
Short-term aggregate risk estimates are equal to the total short-term
residential post-application dermal exposure estimates plus average
dietary exposure estimates. For adults, the most conservative
residential exposure estimate is from post-application dermal exposure
from golfing activities after applications to golf courses, with a
margin of exposure (MOE) above the Agency's level of concern of 100
(MOE = 2600). For children 6 to less than 11 years old, the most highly
exposed child subgroup for residential exposure, the most conservative
residential exposure estimate is from post-application dermal exposure
from golfing activities after applications to golf courses. The dietary
exposure for children 6 to 12 years old was used to calculate aggregate
exposure as this subgroup is similar to the subgroup children 6 to less
than 11 years old. The MOE is above the Agency's level of concern of
100 (MOE = 1900). Children 1 to <2 years old were the highest exposed
child subgroup for dietary exposures, which does not match the most
highly exposed child subgroup for residential exposure (children 6 to
<11 years old). However, the selected residential exposure scenarios
for aggregation, adults and children (6 to <11 years old), represent

the worst-case risk estimates and are protective of all other life
stages and exposure scenarios. Considering both the total short-term
residential post-application dermal exposures and average dietary
exposures for both adults and children, EPA has concluded the short-
term aggregate MOEs are 790 and 620 for adults and children 6 to less
than 11 years old, respectively, which are above the level of concern
of 100 and therefore are not of concern. Intermediate-term residential
exposures are not expected from the residential use of
mefentrifluconazole; therefore, intermediate-term aggregate risk is not
a concern and quantitative estimates were not calculated.
Mefentrifluconazole is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans''; therefore, a quantitative cancer assessment was not
conducted.

C. Determination of Safety

    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to mefentrifluconazole residues. More detailed
information on the subject action to establish a tolerance in or on
banana and coffee can be found in the document entitled,
``Mefentrifluconazole. Human Health Risk Assessment for Petition for
the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances for Use on Banana and Coffee
without U.S. Registration.'' dated 10/20/2021 at https://www.regulations.gov, under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0538.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The analytical enforcement methodologies found in Unit IV.A. of the
final rule published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2019,
establishing tolerances for residues of mefentrifluconazole in or on
multiple commodities are adequate for banana and coffee. See 84 FR
30939 (FRL-9994-51). The methods may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). Codex is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
    There are currently no Codex or Canadian MRLs established for
residues of mefentrifluconazole in banana or coffee; therefore, there
are no issues with harmonization.

C. Response to Comments

    One anonymous comment to the NOF was submitted insisting that no
residues of fluoride, which is a different chemical, should be
permitted for bananas and coffee. Even so, no additional information
was provided that would support a conclusion that the tolerances
requested for mefentrifluconazole are not safe. Although some
individuals do not want pesticides to be used on food, the FFDCA
authorizes EPA to establish tolerances that permit certain levels of
pesticide residues in or on food when the Agency can determine that
such residues are safe. EPA has made that determination for the
tolerances subject to this action, and the commenter provided no
information to support a determination that the tolerance is not safe.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is establishing a tolerance on ``coffee, green bean'' rather
than the requested tolerance on ``coffee'' to be consistent with the
terminology the Agency uses for that commodity.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
mefentrifluconazole in or on banana at 1.5 ppm and coffee, green bean,
at 0.4 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 9, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.705, amend table 1 to paragraph (a) by adding in
alphabetical order the entries ``Banana'' and ``Coffee, green bean'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  180.705  Mefentrifluconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Banana \1\..................................................         1.5

                                * * * * *
Coffee, green bean \1\......................................         0.4

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of December 15, 2021.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-27093 Filed 12-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28019-28022]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0177]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: San Francisco State Graduation Fireworks Display,
San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA in support of the
San Francisco State University Graduation Fireworks Display on May 28,
2016. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of mariners
and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics.
Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission
of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 1 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 28,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2016-0177. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

APA Adminstrative Procedure Act
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Orders
FR Federal Register
COTP Captain of the Port
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PATCOM Patrol Commander
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
TFR Temporary Final Rule

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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.'' Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in
this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other
vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is
in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the
event in order to minimize potential danger to the public during the
event. However, the Coast Guard received the information about the
fireworks display on February 26, 2016. There is not enough time to
complete the rulemaking process before the fireworks display is
scheduled to occur.
    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 these same reasons, the Coast
Guard finds good cause for implementing this rule less than thirty days
before the effective date of the rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively
authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.
    The San Francisco State University Graduation will feature a finale
fireworks display on May 28, 2016, near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA
in approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N. 122[deg]22'56'' W. (NAD 83)
as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Chart 18650. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks
barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary
safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the
fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 1 p.m. until 5 p.m.
on May 28, 2016, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San
Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the
start of the transit. From 8 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the
loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site
near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA in approximate position
37[deg]46'36'' N. 122[deg]22'56'' W. (NAD 83), where it will remain
until the commencement of the fireworks display. Prior to the
commencement of the 10-minute fireworks display, at 9:30 p.m. on May
28, 2016, the safety zone will expand to encompass the navigable waters
within 700 feet of approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N.
122[deg]22'56'' W. (NAD 83). The fireworks display is meant for
entertainment purposes. This restricted area around the fireworks
launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other
property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The proposed safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around
the barge near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA. During the loading,
transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge and until the start of the
fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable
waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100
feet. From 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the fireworks barge
will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge
will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the transit. From 8 p.m.
until 8:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the loaded fireworks barge will
transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA in approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N. 122[deg]22'56''
W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the
fireworks display. Prior to the commencement of the 10-minute fireworks
display, at 9:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the safety zone will expand to
encompass the navigable waters within a radius of 700 feet of
approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N. 122[deg]22'56'' W. (NAD 83). The
safety zone shall terminate at 10 p.m.
    The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of
the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain
in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators
and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to
ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (E.O.'s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.'s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,

it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the
level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is
limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic
area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters
encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be
significant because the local waterway users will be notified via
public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will
result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are
waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged
in recreational activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and
thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety
zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety
zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety
zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    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,
above.
    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 Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and
duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T11-774 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-774  Safety Zone; San Francisco State Graduation
Fireworks Display, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. This safety zone is established in the navigable
waters of the San Francisco Bay near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA, as
depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Chart 18650. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks
barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary
safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the
fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 1 p.m. until 5 p.m.
on May 28, 2016, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San
Francisco, CA. The fireworks

barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the transit. From 8
p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the loaded fireworks barge will
transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA in approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N. 122[deg]22'56''
W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the
fireworks display. Prior to the commencement of the 10-minute fireworks
display, at 9:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the safety zone will expand to
encompass the navigable waters within 700 feet of approximate position
37[deg]46'36'' N. 122[deg]22'56'' W. (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. The safety zone described in paragraph (a)
of this section will be enforced from 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 28,
2016. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the
maritime community of periods during which this zone will be enforced
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with Sec.  165.7.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated to assist in
the enforcement of the safety zones.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of
this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zone may contact the Patrol
Commander (PATCOM) on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 26, 2016.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2016-10892 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41181-41185]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0101]
 RIN 2127-AK99

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to restore the blue and green color
boundaries to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, that were removed
when the agency published a final rule reorganizing the standard on
December 4, 2007.

DATES: Comments to this proposal must be received on or before
September 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket
number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Markus
Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-
0098) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues: Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief Counsel,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    NHTSA published a NPRM on December 30, 2005 \1\ to reorganize FMVSS
No. 108 and improve the clarity of the standard's requirements thereby
increasing its utility for regulated parties. It was the agency's goal
during the rewrite process to make no substantive changes to the
requirements of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 70 FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 108 has been in existence since 1968. The standard had
been amended on an ad hoc basis over time resulting in a patchwork
organization of the standard. Regulated parties had stated that the
standard was difficult to interpret because of its organization. In
response to these concerns the agency sought to rewrite the standard to
make it more understandable by adopting a simplified numbering scheme,
to improve organization by grouping related materials in a more logical
and consistent sequence, and to reduce the certification burden of
regulated parties who previously needed to review a few dozen third-
party documents. The agency issued the December 30, 2005, NPRM in an
attempt to address these concerns.
    Based on the comments received in response to the NPRM, NHTSA
published a final rule on December 4, 2007,\2\ amending FMVSS No. 108
by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more
straightforward and logical presentation of the applicable regulatory
requirements; incorporating important agency interpretations of the
existing requirements; and reducing reliance on third-party documents
incorporated by reference. The preamble of the final rule again stated
that the rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 was administrative in nature and
would have no impact on the substantive requirements of the standard.
The final rule made several changes to the proposal contained in the
NPRM including removing the blue and green color boundary requirements
from paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 72 FR 68234, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 11, 2008, SABIC Innovative Plastics sent a letter to
NHTSA claiming that the agency did not allow for public comment when it
made the decision to remove the blue and green color boundaries from
the standard. SABIC further argued that in removing the blue and green
color boundaries from paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, the agency substantively
changed the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 during the rewrite process.

II. Green and Blue Color Boundaries

    Previous to the rewrite of the standard, paragraph S5.1.5 of FMVSS
No. 108 required that the color of all lamps required by the standard
comply with SAE J578c, Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting
Devices, (FEB 1977). SAE J578c contained color boundary definitions for
red, yellow, white, green, restricted blue, and signal blue light. The
NPRM included the boundary definition for the colors blue and green,
but left out restricted blue. In the final rule the agency removed the
color boundary definitions for green and blue from paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, retaining only the definitions for the red, yellow, and
white color boundaries.
    The agency is aware that, although neither blue nor green are
directly used within the standard, it is possible to use these color
boundaries to certify a material to the outdoor exposure test located
in the paragraphs of S<IP_ADDRESS>. Prior to the reorganization final rule,
a manufacturer could separately certify both a clear (white) material
and a blue material to the haze test. The blue material alone could not
be used in a lamp because the lamp itself would not emit the color of
light required by the standard (only white, amber, and red lights are
permitted). Once individually certified to the three year haze test,
however, the blue and clear material could be mixed to produce a clear
material with a blue tint, which could then be used in a lamp lens
provided the lamp itself emits light within the white color boundary.
Under the standard, the mixed material can be certified to the haze
test without an additional three years of testing.
    The agency recognizes that removing the color definitions for blue
and green creates a substantive change to the requirements of FMVSS No.
108. Since it was not the agency's intention to create any substantive
modifications to the standard, as stated in the NPRM and preamble of
the final rule, the agency is proposing to amend FMVSS No. 108 to add
color boundary definitions for green, restricted blue and signal blue
so that the requirements of the rewrite coincide with those of the old
standard. Further, the agency notes that these additional color
boundary definitions have no impact on color that any lamp must emit.
The agency is not proposing to change the color requirements for any
lamp mandated by FMVSS No. 108.

III. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Compliance Date

    Because this proposal only restores an existing requirement to the
standard, the agency does not anticipate that there would be any costs
or benefits associated with this rulemaking action. Accordingly, the
agency did not conduct a separate economic analysis for this
rulemaking.
    The agency proposes an effective date of December 1, 2012, should a
final rule be issued, to coincide with the effective date of the FMVSS
No. 108 administrative rewrite.

IV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\3\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''

     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we
encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' It is not considered to
be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies
and procedures.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
    We have reviewed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' 13 CFR 121.105(a). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of the proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposal restores the green and blue color boundaries
contained in the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 to the
administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 which has not yet taken effect.
Accordingly, we do not anticipate that this proposal would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have
``substantial direct effects 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.''
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' \6\
NHTSA has

considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive effect.
This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995).
    Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
    This proposed rule is not anticipated to result in the expenditure
by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in excess of $100 million annually. The cost impact of
this proposed rule is expected to be $0. Therefore, the agency has not
prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This proposed rule does not contain any collection
of information requirements requiring review under the PRA.
H. Executive Order 13045
    Executive Order 13045 \7\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on
children, and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule does not pose such a risk for children. The
primary effects of this proposal are to amend the lighting standard to
restore the green and blue color boundaries.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specification and related management systems practices.''
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
    Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus
standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available
and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are
required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of
the reasons for not using such standards.
    This proposal would not adopt or reference any new industry or
consensus standards that were not already present in FMVSS No. 108.
J. Executive Order 13211
    Executive Order 13211 \8\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either
criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed
rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal restores the green and blue color boundaries
contained in the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 to the
administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 which has not yet taken effect.
Therefore, this proposed rule will not have any adverse energy effects.
Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking action is not designated as a
significant energy action.
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
L. Plain Language
    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
M. Privacy Act
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an organization, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you

may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec.  571.108  [Amended]

    Section 571.108 is amended effective December 1, 2012 by adding
paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.4, S<IP_ADDRESS>.5, and S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.6 to read as
follows:
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.4 Green. The color of light emitted must fall within
the following boundaries:
    y = 0.73-0.73x (yellow boundary);
    y = 0.50-0.50x (blue boundary);
    x = 0.63y-0.04 (white boundary).
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.5 Restricted Blue. The color of light emitted must fall
within the following boundaries:
    y = 0.07 + 0.81x (green boundary);
    x = 0.40 -y (white boundary);
    x = 0.13 + 0.60y (violet boundary).
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.6 Signal Blue. The color of light emitted must fall
within the following boundaries:
    y = 0.32 (green boundary);
    x = 0.40-y (white boundary);
    x = 0.16 (white boundary);
    x = 0.13 + 0.60y (violet boundary).
* * * * *

    Issued on: July 7, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-17658 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41159-41160]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. 2022-0176]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewal Approval of Information Collection 2120-0776,
Airspace Authorizations in Controlled Airspace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew Information Collection
2120-0776. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on February 18, 2022. The FAA proposes renewal of the
collection of information related to requests to operate small Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (sUAS) in controlled airspace. FAA will use the
collected information to make determinations whether to authorize or
deny the requested authorization of sUAS operation in controlled
airspace. The proposed information collection is necessary to issue
such authorizations or denials consistent with the FAA's mandate to
ensure safe and efficient use of national airspace.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Gallagher by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA received three comments from the
public. Two were supportive. The first was anonymous and expressed
approval of the collection. The second supportive comment was from
Airlines for America, which noted that the collection of such
information can be used in furtherance of the FAA's regulatory approach
for the seamless

integration of UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS).
Airlines for America commented that FAA must ensure adequate safety
precautions to avoid collisions of UAS with manned aircraft and that
the proposed collection will help identify compliant from noncompliant
operations and further this safety model.
    The final comment was from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), which commented that the collection of
information to process authorization requests has not been subject to
sufficient safety risk evaluation and therefore cannot be fully
determined whether the information collected is adequate to verify if
safe operations can be conducted. Further, ALPA commented that it
believes the FAA's current minimum requirements for information in a
Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC)
application are not sufficient. According to ALPA, additional
information including aircraft registration, make and model
information, and post-flight information should be collected. In this
Information Collection renewal request, the FAA proposes to use LAANC
and the web portal to collect information that provides a means for
small UAS operators operating under Sec.  44809 to comply with Sec.
44809's established requirements and safety processes. This proposed
information collection is sufficient to meet safety standards and
captures essential information.
    ALPA also commented that the FAA has not determined through its
Safety Management System process the risk that UAS operating in
controlled airspace introduce to the NAS and, therefore, ALPA is unable
to determine if the information collected is adequate. This second
category of comments is substantially the same as comments that ALPA
submitted in response to Information Collection 2120-0768's 60 Day
Notice published on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6082) and to the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making that was eventually implemented as a final rule at
81 FR 42063 on June 28, 2016 and codified as 14 CFR part 107. The FAA
analyzed the proposed information to be collected under Sec.  44809 and
determined that the information is adequate for the FAA to meet safety
standards.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0776.
    Title: Airspace Authorizations in Controlled Airspace under 49
U.S.C. 44809(a)(5).
    Form Numbers: There are no forms associated with this collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of existing Information Collection.
    Background: There has been an increased number of small UAS
operating in the NAS in recent years, and regulations and statutes have
been enacted to establish the use of small UAS in the NAS. Included in
these is 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(5), which states that a strictly
recreational user of small UAS must have authorization from the FAA to
fly a small UAS ``in Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within
the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class E airspace
designated for an airport.'' In order to process airspace authorization
requests, the FAA requires the operator's name, the operator's contact
information, and information related to the date, place, and time of
the requested authorization, which can be up to twelve hours in length.
This information is necessary for the FAA to meet its statutory mandate
of maintaining a safe and efficient national airspace. See 49 U.S.C.
40103, 44701, and 44807. The FAA will use the requested information to
determine if the proposed authorization to operate can be conducted
safely.
    The FAA proposes to use LAANC and an FAA web portal to process
authorization requests from the public to conduct flight operations
under 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(5).
    Respondents: Small UAS operators seeking to conduct flight
operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(5) within controlled airspace.
Between 2022-2025, the FAA estimates that it will receive a total of
757,380 requests for airspace authorization (735,416 through LAANC and
21,964 through the web portal).
    Frequency: The requested information is necessary each time a
respondent requests an airspace authorization to operate a small UAS
under 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(5) in controlled airspace.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: The FAA estimates the
respondents using LAANC will take five (5) minutes per airspace
authorization request and those using the web portal will take thirty
(30) minutes per request.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: For airspace authorizations, the FAA
estimates that the average annual burden will be 24,089 burden hours.
This includes 20,428 burden hours for 245,139 LAANC respondents and
3,661 burden hours for 7,321 web portal respondents.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July, 5 2022.
Victoria Gallagher,
UAS LAANC Program Manager, AJM-337.
[FR Doc. 2022-14640 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 54547-54548]
[DOCID:fr15se06-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54417; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Exchange Fees and Charges

September 8, 2006.
    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 August 31, 2006, the NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges in
order to extend the pilot program (``Pilot Program'') that applies to
Option Strategy Executions until March 1, 2007. The Exchange also
proposes at this time to correct a minor typographical error on the
schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on NYSE
Arca's Web site at (http://www.nysearca.com), at the Office of the

Secretary at NYSE Arca, 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 proposal. 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 Exchange represents that the purpose of this proposed rule
change is to extend the Pilot Program that applies to Option Strategy
Executions until March 1, 2007. The transactions included as part of
the Pilot Program include reversals and conversions,\5\ dividend
spreads,\6\ box spreads,\7\ short stock interest spreads,\8\ and merger
spreads.\9\ Because the referenced Options Strategy Transactions are
generally executed by professionals whose profit margins are generally
narrow, the Pilot Program caps the transaction fees associated with
such executions at $1,000 per strategy execution that are executed on
the same trading day in the same option class. In addition, there is
also a monthly cap of $50,000 per initiating firm for all strategy
executions. The Exchange believes that by keeping fees low, the

Exchange will be able to attract liquidity by accommodating these
transactions. Extending the Pilot Program until March 1, 2007 will
allow the Exchange to keep these fees low and thus continue to attract
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Reversals and conversions are transactions that employ
calls, puts and the underlying stock to lock in a nearly risk free
profit. Reversals are established by combining a short stock
position with a short put and a long call position that shares the
same strike and expiration. Conversions employ long positions in the
underlying stock that accompany long puts and short calls sharing
the same strike and expiration.
    \6\ Dividend spreads are trades involving deep in the money
options that exploit pricing differences arising around the time a
stock goes ex-dividend.
    \7\ Box spreads is a strategy that synthesizes long and short
stock positions to create a profit. Specifically, a long call and
short put at one strike is combined with a short call and long put
at a different strike to create synthetic long and synthetic short
stock positions, respectively.
    \8\ A short stock interest spread is a spread that uses two deep
in the money put options of the same class followed by the exercise
of the resulting long position in order to establish a short stock
interest arbitrage position.
    \9\ A merger spread is a transaction executed pursuant to a
strategy involving the simultaneous purchase and sale of options of
the same class and expiration date, but with different strike prices
followed by the exercise of the resulting long option position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OTP Holders and OTP Firms who wish to benefit from the fee cap will
be required to submit to the Exchange forms with supporting
documentation (e.g., clearing firm transaction data) to qualify for the
cap.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of dues,
fees, and other charges among its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \13\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-52. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE Arca. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-52 and should be submitted on or before
October 6, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15299 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P