[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14158-14161]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06927]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85495; File No. SR-ICC-2019-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Risk Parameter
Setting and Review Policy

April 3, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On February 6, 2019, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2019-002)
to formalize the ICC Risk Parameter Setting and Review Policy (``Risk
Parameter Policy'').\3\ The proposed rule change was published in the
Federal Register on February 22, 2019.\4\ The Commission did not
receive comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined have
the meaning set forth in the ICC Rules or the Risk Parameter Policy.
Available at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_credit/ICE_Clear_Credit_Rules.pdf.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-85157 (Feb. 15,
2019), 84 FR 5748 (Feb. 22, 2019) (SR-ICC-2019-002) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would formalize the Risk Parameter Policy.
The Risk Parameter Policy would explain ICC's process for setting and
calibrating the core parameters of, and reviewing the assumptions
underlying, the ICC Risk Management Model (the ``Model''). The Risk
Parameter Policy would also explain the analyses that ICC performs to
explore the sensitivity of the Model's outputs to certain core
parameters.

A. Parameter Setting and Calibration

    The Risk Parameter Policy would discuss the process of setting and
reviewing the Model's core parameters and their underlying
assumptions.\5\ The Risk Parameter Policy would first list each of the
Model's parameters and then summarize (i) the method used to review and
set the parameter; (ii) the frequency of review; (iii) the group within
ICC responsible for the review (Risk Management Department (``ICC
Risk''), Risk Working Group (``RWG''), or Risk Committee (``RC''); and
(iv) whether the review is statistical or non-statistical. The Risk
Parameter Policy would then explain in detail the process for setting
and reviewing the parameters, with the parameters categorized according
to their associated component of the Model: (i) Liquidity charge; (ii)
concentration charge; (iii) jump-to-default; (iv) interest rate
sensitivity; (v) basis risk; and (vi) integrated spread response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice, 84 FR at 5748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the parameters associated with the liquidity charge, the Risk
Parameter Policy would describe the parameters associated with index
instruments and single-name instruments.\6\ With respect to index
instruments, the Risk Parameter Policy would specify how ICC Risk
estimates the Bid Offer Widths (``BOWs'') for indices across volatile
and extreme market conditions, in addition to how ICC Risk recognizes
long-short benefits when computing portfolio-level index liquidity
charges. With respect to single-name instruments, the Risk Parameter
Policy would explain the parameters that ICC uses to incorporate a
price-based BOW component and a spread-based BOW component into the
liquidity charge. The Risk Parameter Policy would require ICC Risk to
estimate and review the liquidity charge parameters and their
underlying assumptions at least monthly and present the analysis and
any proposed changes to the RWG for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Notice, 84 FR at 5749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the parameters associated with the concentration charge, the
Risk Parameter Policy would explain how ICC Risk establishes specific
threshold levels for each index or SN Risk Factor (``RF'').\7\ The
thresholds would reflect the market depth and liquidity for the
considered RFs. The concentration charges would apply to positions that

exceed those thresholds and would increase as the amount above the
threshold increases. The Risk Parameter Policy would require ICC Risk
to estimate and review the concentration charge parameters and their
underlying assumptions at least monthly and present the analysis and
any proposed changes to the RWG for review. Moreover, the Risk
Parameter Policy would require ICC Risk to consult the RC if the review
and analysis results in a proposed change that could impact total
initial margin requirements by more than 5%. In that case, ICC Risk
could not implement the proposed change without first obtaining a no-
objection from the RC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Notice, 84 FR at 5749. ICC deems each index, sub-index, or
underlying SN reference entity a separate RF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the parameters associated with jump-to-default, the Risk
Parameter Policy would categorize the parameters as either Loss-Given-
Default (``LGD'') or Wrong-Way Risk (``WWR'').\8\ LGD would consider
possible loss resulting from a default while WWR would consider the
strong adverse correlation between a default risk and the occurrence of
large losses in a Clearing Participant's (``CP'') portfolio. The LGD
parameters would measure losses associated with various credit events
by constructing scenarios for anticipated recovery rates associated
with those credit events. The Risk Parameter Policy would explain these
scenarios and estimations and further explain computations for RF
groups (``RFG'') \9\ and related parameters. The Risk Parameter Policy
would also explain the parameters used to quantify WWR, compute WWR
jump-to-default requirements, and determine the level of collateral
necessary to cover WWR. The Risk Parameter Policy would further explain
the thresholds that are established as parameters for each RF
generating exposure to WWR. Exposure to WWR beyond these thresholds
would increase the amount of collateral needed to cover that exposure.
The Risk Parameter Policy would require ICC Risk to estimate and review
at least monthly the LGD and WWR parameters and their underlying
assumptions and present the analysis and any proposed changes to the
RWG for review. Moreover, the Risk Parameter Policy would require ICC
Risk to consult the RC if the review and analysis results in a proposed
change that could impact total initial margin requirements by more than
5%. In that case, ICC Risk could not implement the proposed change
without first obtaining a no-objection from the RC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Notice, 84 FR at 5749.
    \9\ ICC deems a set of SN RFs related by a common parental
ownership structure a RFG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the parameters associated with interest rate sensitivity, the
Risk Parameter Policy would specify how ICC Risk estimates the up and
down parallel shifts for the US Dollar and Euro default-free discount
term structures.\10\ The interest rate sensitivity aspect of the Model
would account for the risk associated with changes in the default-free
discount term structure used to price CDS instruments. The Risk
Parameter Policy would require ICC Risk to estimate and review the
interest rate sensitivity parameters and their underlying assumptions
at least monthly and present the analysis and any proposed changes to
the RWG for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Notice, 84 FR at 5749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the parameters associated with basis risk, the Risk Parameter
Policy would explain how ICC Risk estimates the risk associated with
the differences between the index instruments and their replicating
baskets of single-name constituents.\11\ As index-derived single-name
positions and opposite single-name positions are offset, the Model
would use the basis risk requirement to capture the differences between
the trading characteristics of index instruments and their replicating
baskets of single-name constituents. The Risk Parameter Policy would
require ICC Risk to estimate and review the interest rate sensitivity
parameters and their underlying assumptions at least monthly and
present the analysis and any proposed changes to the RWG for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Notice, 84 FR at 5749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the parameters associated with integrated spread response, the
Risk Parameter Policy would classify them as either univariate or
multivariate.\12\ The Risk Parameter Policy would describe the
estimation of the univariate parameters, including the consideration of
time series analysis of credit spread log-returns. The Risk Parameter
Policy would further explain how different mean absolute deviation
estimates are obtained for each time series and explain the setting of
the exponentially weighted moving average decay rate. The Risk
Parameter Policy would also explain how ICC determines and reviews the
multivariate parameters. Using a simulation framework, ICC would
generate spread and recovery rate scenarios by means of copulas to
integrate the univariate distributions that describe spread and RR
fluctuations. The Risk Parameter Policy would describe the multivariate
parameters that serve as inputs to the copula simulations. The Risk
Parameter Policy would require ICC Risk to estimate and review the
integrated spread response parameters and their underlying assumptions
at least monthly and present the analysis and any proposed changes to
the RWG for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Notice, 84 FR at 5749-5750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Sensitivity Analysis

    The Risk Parameter Policy would explain the analyses that ICC Risk
performs to explore the sensitivity of the Model's outputs to certain
core parameters.\13\ The Risk Parameter Policy would divide sensitivity
analyses into those that would include an ICC-wide portfolio impact
study and those that would not. Moreover, the Risk Parameter Policy
would require monthly summary reports to the RC or the RWG, depending
on the parameter analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Notice, 84 FR at 5750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Risk Parameter Policy would specify which parameters would be
subject to a sensitivity analysis.\14\ First, the Risk Parameter Policy
would require a sensitivity analysis on those parameters that are
calibrated on an ad-hoc basis rather than using a purely statistical
approach. For example, the Risk Parameter Policy would describe how ICC
conducts a sensitivity analysis on the univariate level integrated
spread response parameters through alternative techniques to estimate
the parameters that fit the standardized distributions to the observed
credit spread log-return data. Second, the Risk Parameter Policy would
require a sensitivity analysis for routine updates to statistical
parameters, which occur daily or monthly. Finally, the Risk Parameter
Policy would require a sensitivity analysis of other specific
parameters, including portfolio benefits, WWR thresholds, and log-
return mean absolute deviation estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\15\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
\16\ and Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2),

17Ad-22(b)(3), and 17Ad-22(d)(8) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2), (b)(3), and (d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well
as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed rule change would formalize ICC's
Risk Parameter Policy. The Commission believes that, in general, the
Risk Parameter Policy would help ensure the sound operation of ICC's
Model. Specifically, the Commission believes that the Risk Parameter
Policy, in describing in detail ICC's process for setting and reviewing
the parameters of, and assumptions underlying, the Model, would help
assure the soundness of the Model by ensuring that ICC has in place a
standardized process for setting and reviewing the Model's parameters.
Because the Model's parameters affect the output of the Model--ICC's
margin requirements--the Commission believes that reviewing and setting
the parameters and underlying assumptions is important to ensure the
effective operation of the ICC's margin system. The Commission further
believes that the Risk Parameter Policy, in requiring monthly parameter
reviews and sensitivity analyses, and setting out the requirements for
reporting the results of such reviews to the RWG and/or RC, would help
assure that ICC personnel are informed of the results of such reviews
and therefore able to take action to correct any issues with the
Model's parameters or assumptions.
    By helping to assure the sound operation of the Model and ICC's
margin requirements, which ICC uses to manage the credit exposures
associated with clearing security based swap transactions, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change would help improve
ICC's ability to avoid the losses that could result from the
miscalculation of ICC's credit exposures. Because such losses could
disrupt ICC's ability to operate and thus promptly and accurately clear
and settle security based swap transactions, the Commission finds the
proposed rule change would promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions. Because such losses could
also threaten access to securities and funds in ICC's control, the
Commission finds the proposed rule change would help assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds that are in the custody or control
of ICC or for which it is responsible. Likewise, for both of these
reasons, the Commission finds the proposed rule change would, in
general, help protect investors and the public interest.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change would
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICC's
custody and control, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest, consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2) and 17Ad-22(b)(3)

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use
margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under
normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to
set margin requirements and review such margin requirements and the
related risk-based models and parameters at least monthly.\20\ Rule
17Ad-22(b)(3) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain
sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by
the two participant families to which it has the largest exposures in
extreme but plausible market conditions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change would help ensure the soundness of the Model by formalizing
ICC's process for setting and reviewing the Model's parameters and
underlying assumptions. The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change would therefore help ICC to maintain margin requirements to
limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market
conditions. Moreover, as discussed above, the Risk Parameter Policy
would also require that ICC Risk conduct parameter reviews and
sensitivity analyses monthly, consistent with the requirement of Rule
17Ad-22(b)(2).\22\ Finally, as discussed above, the Risk Parameter
Policy would also require that ICC Risk report the results of its
reviews to the RWG and/or RC and, in some cases, receive no-objection
from the RC prior to making changes to the parameters or assumptions.
The Commission believes that this aspect of the Risk Parameter Policy
would help ICC to use risk-based models and parameters to set margin
requirements by providing the RWG and/or RC an opportunity to correct
any issues with the Model's parameters or assumptions. The Commission
therefore finds that the proposed rule is consistent with is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the amount a CP must contribute to ICC's Guaranty Fund is
equal to the expected losses to ICC associated with the default of that
CP, calculated using ICC's stress test methodology, and taking into
account, among other things, the loss after application of initial
margin.\24\ Thus, ICC's guaranty fund is based on the initial margin
requirements. The Commission therefore believes that, in helping to
maintain the soundness of ICC's Model, and therefore ICC's margin
requirements, the proposed rule change would also help ICC to maintain
sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by
the two participant families to which it has the largest exposures in
extreme but plausible market conditions. The Commission therefore finds
that the proposed rule is consistent with is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(3).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See ICC Rule 801(a).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, for these reasons, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2) and 17Ad-
22(b)(3).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2), (b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8)

    Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to have
governance arrangements that are clear and transparent to fulfill the
public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act and to promote
the effectiveness of ICC's risk management procedures.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposed rule change would make ICC Risk
responsible for conducting parameter reviews and sensitivity analyses
on a monthly basis. ICC Risk would in turn consult with the RWG. For
certain parameters, ICC risk would also consult

the RC if the review and analysis results in a proposed change that
could impact total initial margin requirements by more than 5%. In that
case, ICC Risk could not implement the proposed change without first
obtaining a no-objection from the RC. Finally, the Risk Parameter
Policy would also require monthly summary reports of sensitivity
analyses to the RC or the RWG, depending on the parameter analyzed.
    The Commission believes that in assigning these responsibilities,
the proposed rule change would establish governance arrangements
relating to the Risk Parameter Policy that are clear and transparent to
fulfill the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act by
clearly assigning and documenting responsibilities for reporting and
acting on the results of the reviews of the Model's parameters and
assumptions. Moreover, the Commission believes that by ensuring the RWG
and RC are informed of the results of reviews, the Risk Parameter
Policy would help promote the effectiveness of ICC's risk management
procedures in thereby providing the RC and RWG an opportunity to
correct any issues with the Model's parameters and underlying
assumptions.
    Therefore, for this reason, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in
particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
\29\ and Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2), 17Ad-22(b)(3), and 17Ad-22(d)(8)
thereunder.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2), (b)(3), and (d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2019-002) be, and hereby is,
approved.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \32\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06927 Filed 4-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58141-58145]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2021-0039]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; State Data
Transfer for Vehicle Crash Information

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

ACTION: Notice and request for approval of an extension of a currently
approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
summarized below will be submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The
ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden. The State Data Transfer (SDT) program is a voluntary collection
of motor vehicle crash data that State agencies collect for their own
needs. NHTSA received emergency clearance to conduct the information
collection until December 31, 2021. A Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on June 1, 2021. One comment from the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) was received supporting
NHTSA's SDT data collection and the request for emergency clearance to
expedite this effort.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden,
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information
collection, select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment''
or use the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Michael Frenchik, Office of Data
Acquisitions (NSA-0100),<PHONE_NUMBER>, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Room W53-303, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a
Federal agency must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from the public and
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. In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces
that the following information collection request will be submitted to
OMB.
    Title: State Data Transfer (SDT) for Vehicle Crash Information.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0753.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Request: Approval of an extension without modification of a
currently approved information collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Length of Approval Requested: Three years.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The State Data Transfer
(SDT) program is a voluntary collection of motor vehicle crash data.
State agencies collect this information about motor vehicle crashes on
Police Accident Reports (PARs) \1\ for their own needs. In general, a
PAR includes information about the vehicles and individuals involved in
a crash, injuries or fatalities resulting from a crash, roadway
information, environmental information, information to reconstruct the
crash scenes, etc. The SDT is a process through which participating
States transfer their PAR data to NHTSA. SDT has two components that
NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) calls
protocols:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Police Accident Reports are also known as Police Crash
Reports (PCRs) in some jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The State Data System (SDS) protocol obtains PAR crash data from
States that submit data on an annual basis to NCSA. The data is
submitted via electronic media, such as encrypted CD-ROM/DVD, or
through secured mail or a secure file transfer protocol (SFTP). Files
submitted through the SDS protocol are referred to as ``annual crash
files.''
    2. The Electronic Data Transfer (EDT) protocol obtains PAR crash
data, crash reports or crash images from participating State crash
systems through an electronic data transfer. Generally, this transfer
occurs on a nightly basis following State data quality control checks
and acceptance from each State's centralized database. The information
is transmitted using Extensible Markup Language (XML) or JavaScript
Object Notation (JSON) files through a web service using Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) protocol between a State's crash data
system and NHTSA.
    The SDT process allows States to submit all of their PAR data to
NHTSA. NCSA will then use this data to develop a census of the
participating State's crashes. The dataset will help NCSA identify
existing and emerging highway safety trends and assess the
effectiveness of motor vehicle safety standards and new and emerging
technologies on vehicle and highway safety programs. NHTSA will also
use the dataset to support NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) program. Specifically, NHTSA will use the data to analyze the
effects vehicle mass has on fatalities in cost benefit analyses for
CAFE rulemakings.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: NHTSA plans to utilize the SDT data to identify existing
and emerging highway safety trends, assess the effectiveness of motor
vehicle safety standards, and study the impact of new and emerging
technologies on vehicles and highway safety programs. For example,
NHTSA plans to combine data from the SDT with information about the
type of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) on crash-involved
vehicles to estimate the effectiveness of vehicles equipped with ADAS
technologies such as lane keeping support, automatic emergency braking,
blind spot detection, etc.
    NHTSA also plans to use the SDT data to automatically pre-populate
the motor vehicle crash data it collects for several other NHTSA data
collection programs. The following are brief descriptions of these data
collection programs:
     FARS (OMB Control No. 2127-0006) is a nationwide census of
fatalities caused by motor vehicle traffic crashes. In addition to PAR
data, FARS includes detailed information regarding the location of the
crash, the vehicles, and the people involved. FARS cases can also
include toxicology report data, medical records, medical examiner
reports, etc.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional details about FARS and how the agency collects
this information are available in the supporting statements for the
ICR with OMB Control No. 2127-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CRSS (OMB Control No. 2127-0714) is a nationally
representative sample of police-reported crashes involving all types of
motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, ranging from property-
damage-only crashes to those that result in fatalities. CRSS data
elements are a subset of the data elements on each State's PAR.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additional details about CRSS and how the agency collects
this information are available in the supporting statements for the
ICR with OMB Control No. 2127-0714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CISS (OMB Control Number 2127-0706) is a nationally
representative sample of minor, serious, and fatal crashes involving at
least one passenger vehicle--cars, light trucks, sport utility
vehicles, and vans--towed from the scene. CISS collects data at both
the crash level through scene analysis and the vehicle level through
vehicle damage assessment together with injury coding. Data collected
through CISS expands upon the information that is collected in a
PAR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Additional details about CISS and how the agency collects
this information are available in the supporting statements for the
ICR with OMB Control No. 2127-0706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The SCI Program provides NHTSA with the most in-depth
crash data collected by the agency. The data collected ranges from
basic information contained in routine police and insurance crash
reports, to comprehensive data from special reports

produced by professional crash investigation teams. Hundreds of data
elements relevant to the vehicle, occupants, injury mechanisms,
roadway, and safety systems are collected for each of the over 100
crashes designated for study annually.
     NTS is a virtual data collection system designed to
provide counts and details regarding fatalities and injuries that occur
in non-traffic crashes and in non-crash incidents. NTS non-traffic
crash data is obtained through NHTSA's information collections for CRSS
and FARS. NTS non-crash injury data is based upon emergency department
records from a special study conducted by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) All
Injury Program. NTS non-crash fatality data is derived from death
certificate information from the Centers for Disease Control's National
Vital Statistics System.
     CIREN combines crash data collection with professional
multidisciplinary analysis of medical and engineering evidence to
determine injury causation in every crash investigation conducted. The
mission of the CIREN is to improve the prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation of motor vehicle crash injuries to reduce deaths,
disabilities, and human and economic costs.
    Until recently, the transfer of vehicle crash data from a State's
crash data system to NHTSA's FARS, CRSS and CISS required individuals
to manually enter State vehicle crash data into each of the crash data
systems operated by NHTSA. The SDT program will allow NHTSA to automate
the transfer of State motor vehicle crash data into NHTSA's other data
collection efforts that use this information. NHTSA's SDT program will
reduce the burden for manual data entry and result in more accurate,
high quality and timely data to help save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to motor vehicle crashes.
    In addition, the SDT data will be made available to other DOT
agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, to support their mission to save
lives on our national roadways.
    Request for Emergency Clearance: NHTSA requested emergency
clearance from OMB for the SDT information collection. NHTSA requested
emergency clearance for the maximum permissible period under 5 CFR
1320.13 (f) to allow NHTSA to collect the information while it
completes the normal clearance procedures. NHTSA sought emergency
clearance because the data collected through the SDT program are
critical to several high priority projects for this administration. The
SDT data will be used to analyze the effects vehicle mass has on
fatalities in cost benefit analyses for CAFE rulemakings. Executive
Order 13990 requires NHTSA to ``as appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, [. . .] consider publishing for notice and comment a
proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding'' the SAFE II Rule
``by July 2021.'' Following the normal clearance procedures will not
allow NHTSA to receive approval to collect and use this data before the
deadline.
    The Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety (PARTS)
also needs this data to help determine the effectiveness of automated
driver assistance systems (ADAS) with Departmental leadership expecting
initial analyses later this year.
    Given the priorities identified above, this information is needed
before NHTSA can complete the normal clearance procedures under 5 CFR
part 1320. OMB approved the emergency clearance through December 31,
2021.
    60-Day Notice: On June 1, 2021, NHTSA published a notice in the
Federal Register with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on
this ICR.\5\ NHTSA received one comment from the Governors Highway
Safety Association (GHSA). In their comment, GHSA expressed support for
NHTSA's SDT data collection and the request for emergency clearance to
expedite this effort. GHSA stated that it appreciates that the data
collection is voluntary and agrees with NHTSA ``that several States
will likely continue to face participation barriers.'' GHSA further
noted that it understands that the electronic transfer of Stata crash
data reduces time and cost to States that participate and will continue
to partner with NHTSA to promote SDT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 86 FR 29354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: State Governments.
    This voluntary information collection involves State governments,
and specifically the State agencies that collect crash data.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 38.
    Currently, 31 States are voluntarily submitting their annual crash
database to NHTSA using the SDS protocol once the Annual file is
complete and 19 States are voluntarily submitting their State's data
using the EDT protocol where the transfer occurs on a nightly basis.
NHTSA estimates that, on average, in each of the next three years,
there will be 31 States submitting data using the SDS protocol and 23
States submitting data using the EDT protocol. NHTSA estimates that
there will be 15 States submitting data through both EDT and SDS.
Therefore, NHTSA estimates the total number of respondents to be 38.
    Frequency: The frequency of this information collection varies
State-by-State, potentially from daily to annually, as agreed upon by
NHTSA and the individual States. States participating in the SDS
protocol typically send a file to NHTSA once a year with all the
crashes occurring during a calendar year. A State will send these files
when it has completed its quality control process. For the EDT States,
the data is usually transferred every night with the crash cases that
have completed the quality control process since the last nightly
transfer.
    Number of Reponses: NHTSA estimates total annual responses based on
NHTSA's estimate that SDS protocol States will submit files once a year
and EDT protocol States will send data to NHTSA automatically on a
nightly basis. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that it will receive 31 SDS
responses a year (31 SDS States x 1 annual response) and 8,395 EDT
responses a year (23 EDT States x 365 nightly responses).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 683 hours.
    SDT receives the crash data from States in two different ways. SDS
information is obtained annually from States submitted in a more
traditional method via electronic media through secured mail or a
Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). NHTSA assumes a participating
State already has a centralized electronic crash database. Currently,
31 States are voluntarily submitting their annual crash database to
NHTSA, with five States sending electronic media and 26 states
uploading the database to an SFTP site. Since NHTSA accepts the States'
centralized electronic crash database without changes, NHTSA estimates
that it will require eight hours for a State Database Administrator to
save a copy of the State's annual crash database onto a SFTP site or
electronic media. We estimate an additional four hours will be required
for an administrative assistant to package and send the electronic
media to NHTSA.
    To estimate the labor cost associated with submitting the SDS
information, NHTSA looked at wage estimates for the type of personnel
involved with copying, packaging and sending the database. NHTSA
estimates the total labor costs associated with copying the database by
looking at the average wage for Database and Network Administrator

and Architects. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that the
average hourly wage for Database and Network Administrator and
Architects (Standard Occupational Classification #15-1240, May 2020) is
$47.80.\6\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that State and
local government workers' wages represent 61.9% of total labor
compensation costs.\7\ Therefore, NHTSA estimates the hourly labor
costs for copying the database to be $77.22 ($47.80 / 61.9%) for
Database and Network Administrator and Architects. The cost associated
with the eight hours of Database and Network Administrator labor is
estimated to be $617.76 per respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See May 2020 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates United States, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).
    \7\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership (Dec. 2020), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 5 States sending electronic media, NHTSA estimates the
total labor costs for packing and sending the database by looking at
the average wage for Secretaries and Administrative Assistants. The BLS
estimates that the average hourly wage for Secretaries and
Administrator Assistants (Standard Occupational Classification #43-
6014, May 2020) is $19.43.\8\ By using the same estimate that wages
represent 61.9% of the total compensation cost of labor, NHTSA
estimates the total labor hour for packing and sending the database on
electronic media to be $31.39. Therefore, the cost associated with the
four hours to send the electronic media is estimated to be $125.56 per
respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See May 2020 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates United States, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combining these copying and packing and sending burden estimates
for SDS, NHTSA estimates that the total burden hours associated with
this collection will be 268 (248 + 20 hours) hours and total labor cost
associated with the collection will be $19,151 ($617.76 x 31 States)
for copying and $628 ($125.56 x 5 States) for packing and sending, for
a total of $19,779 ($19,151 + $628) for the SDS protocol.

                                                               SDS Burden Estimate Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Burden hours    Total burden   Labor cost per  Labor cost per    Total labor
                       Burden type                          Respondents   per respondent       hours        burden hour     respondent         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDS Copying.............................................              31               8             248          $77.22         $617.76      $19,150,56
                                                                                19,151
SDS Packing and sending.................................               5               4              20           31.39          125.56          627.80
                                                                                628
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............             268  ..............  ..............          19,779
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EDT protocol burden hour estimate is based on the level of
effort reported by the States that have fully implemented SDT. NHTSA
estimates that in each of the next three years, there will be two new
States joining the 19 States already participating in SDT program using
the EDT protocol. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that there will be, on
average, 23 EDT protocol States in each of the next three years. Cost
and burden estimates for the EDT protocol are divided in two: a one-
time implementation effort, and an annual maintenance effort. Both
estimates assume a participating State already has a centralized
electronic crash database. The burden for the one-time implementation
of the SDT program is estimated at 200 hours. NHTSA estimates that
these hours will account for work done by State IT (150 hrs.) and FARS
program personnel (50 hrs.).
    Once implemented, the hourly burden on States associated with SDT
maintenance is estimated at five hours per year, based upon currently
participating States' experiences. This time is generally used to
troubleshoot any connection issues or refine mapping protocols for any
data elements that have changed.
    NHTSA estimates the cost for IT personnel burden hours using the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' mean wage estimate for Software developers
and Programmers (Standard Occupational Classification # 15-1250) of
$52.86.\9\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that for State and
local government workers, wages represent 61.9% of total
compensation.\10\ Therefore, the total hourly cost associated with the
IT burden hours is estimated to be $85.40 per hour. The cost associated
with the 150 hours of IT personnel labor is estimated to be $12,810.00
per respondent. Initial SDT implementation is also expected to involve
50 hours of FARS program personnel time. There is no additional cost to
the States associated with these hours because these costs may be
charged to the Federal Government through the FARS cooperative
agreements. Thus, total labor cost for EDT implication costs per State
are estimated to be $12,810.00. The total annual implementation burden
cost per year is estimated to be $25,620 ($12,810.00 x 2 new State
respondents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See May 2020 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates United States, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).
    \10\ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by ownership (Dec.
2020), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm
(accessed April 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After initial implementation of a SDT interface, the ongoing cost
burden to participating States is estimated at 5 hours per State
annually, based on a survey of currently participating States. Per the
loaded labor rates for State IT staff outlined above, 5 hours of work
translates to an estimated total annual maintenance burden of $427.00
per State respondent maintaining participation in the SDT program.
NHTSA estimates that there will be, on average, 23 States participating
in EDT program in each of the next three years. Therefore, the annual
maintenance cost for the States is a total of $9,821.00 ($427.00 x 23
States) per year.
    Combining these implementation and maintenance burden estimates for
the EDT protocol, NHTSA estimates that the total burden hours
associated with this collection will be 415 hours and total labor cost
associated with the collection will be $35,441.00.

                                                               EDT Burden Estimate Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Burden hours    Total burden   Labor cost per  Labor cost per    Total labor
                       Burden type                          Respondents   per respondent       hours        burden hour     respondent         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDT IT Implementation...................................               2             150             300          $85.40      $12,810.00      $25,620.00
                                                                                25,620
EDT Maintenance.........................................              23               5             115           85.40          427.00        9,821.00
                                                                                9,821
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............             415  ..............  ..............          35,441
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated burden for SDT is 683 (268 SDS + 415 EDT) and
total estimated labor cost is $55,220 ($19,779 SDS + $35,441 EDT).
    A summary of the burden estimates is provided in the table below.

                                                               SDT Burden Estimate Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average burden
                       Burden type                          Respondents    Total annual    Total burden      hours per      Total labor   Labor cost per
                                                                             responses         hours        respondent         cost         respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDS.....................................................              31              31             268               9         $19,779            $638
EDT.....................................................              23           8,395             415              18          35,441           1,541
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............             683  ..............          55,220  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.
    NHTSA does not expect that participating states will incur any
costs beyond the labor hour cost associated with the burden hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

Chou-Lin Chen,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2021-22824 Filed 10-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26844-26846]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12517]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0519]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; LAZ Trommler Fireworks, Sandusky Bay, Marblehead, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
Captain of the Port Detroit Zone on Sandusky Bay, in the vicinity of
Marblehead, OH. This Zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions
of the Sandusky Bay for the LAZ Trommler Fireworks Display. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Detroit, or his designated representative. This temporary
safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. on July 4, 2018 until
10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2018-0519. 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
temporary rule, call or email MST1 Ryan Erpelding, Waterways
Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419)
418-6037, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

I. 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.'' 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. The event sponsor notified the Coast Guard
with insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. Thus,
delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the comment period
to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because it would prevent the Captain of the Port Detroit from keeping
the public safe from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks
displays.
    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. Waiting for a 30-day effective
period to run is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for
the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

II. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with fireworks displays starting after
9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a
500 foot radius of the launch site. The likely combination of
recreational vessels, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light,
and fireworks debris falling into the water presents risks of
collisions which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the
fireworks display.

III. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 9
p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018 with a rain date of July 5, 2018
from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all U.S.
navigable waters of the Sandusky Bay within a 500 foot radius of the
fireworks launch site located at position 41[deg]30'16'' N,
083[deg]48'08'' W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD 83).
    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the
fireworks display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the
Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16.

IV. 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 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') 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 including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action,
this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See
OMB's Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of
the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The majority of vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone, which
will impact only a portion of the Sandusky Bay in Marblehead, OH for a
short period time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may
still

transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the
Port.

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 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.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this temporary rule on 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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting 90 minutes that will prohibit entry
within a 500 foot radius from where a fireworks display will be
conducted. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 01. 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 record
keeping 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 Sec.  165.T09-0519 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0519  Safety Zone; LAZ Trommler Fireworks, Sandusky Bay,
Marblehead, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
U.S. navigable waters of the Sandusky Bay within a 500 foot radius of
the fireworks launch site located at position 41[deg]30'16'' N
083[deg]48'08'' W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9
p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018 with a rain date of July 5, 2018
from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The Captain of the Port Detroit, or a
designated representative may suspend enforcement of the safety zone at
any time.
    (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
Detroit, or his designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated
representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his
behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port
Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall

contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his 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 Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated representative.

    Dated: June 6, 2018.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2018-12517 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1761-1764]
[DOCID:fr13ja10-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 04, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER97-4084-011.
    Applicants: Denver City Energy Associates, L.P.
    Description: Denver City Energy Associates, LP submits compliance
filing under Order 697 and Request for Category 2 Seller Status.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-2984-014.
    Applicants: Green Country Energy, LLC.
    Description: Market Power Update of Green Country Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-5008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-3614-013.
    Applicants: BP Energy Company.
    Description: Market Power Update of BP Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1406-014; ER01-1099-013; ER99-2928-010.
    Applicants: Acadia Power Partners, LLC; Cleco Power LLC; Cleco
Evangeline LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power LLC submits filing to supplement their
updated market power analysis.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-719-013; ER98-830-022; ER03-721-012.
    Applicants: Millennium Power Partners, L.P., New Harquahala
Generating Company, LLC, New Athens Generating Company, LLC.
    Description: Revised notice of non-material change in status of New
Athens Generating Company, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1491-003.
    Applicants: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation.
    Description: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation submits
compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 12/24/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 14, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-357-006.
    Applicants: Fenton Power Partners I, LLC.
    Description: Fenton Power Partners, I, LLC submits Substitute
Second Revised Sheet 4 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume
1.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091210-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1225-007; ER08-1111-006; ER08-1226-005.
    Applicants: Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC, Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm
I, LLC, Arlington Wind Power Project LLC.
    Description: Notice of change in status filing under part 35 of
FERC's regulations of Arlington Wind Power Project LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1321-003.
    Applicants: Blue Canyon Windpower V LLC.
    Description: Notice of change in status filing under part 35 of
FERC's regulations of Blue Canyon Windpower V LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-78-001.
    Applicants: Orange Grove Energy, L.P.
    Description: Orange Grover Energy, LP submits a sub. page of its
proposed tariff to correct an incorrect page number and an amended
version of attachment B etc.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-434-000.
    Applicants: CPI USA North Carolina LLC.
    Description: CPI USA North Carolina LLC submits a Notice of
Succession informing the Commission that CPI adopts EPCOR USA NC's
market-based rate tariff as its own etc.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091217-0195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-440-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits the Fiber Communications Addition
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091218-0211
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-450-001; ER01-1044-014; ER00-3696-013; ER01-
3109-014; ER02-506-013; ER03-1383-016; ER07-1000-005; ER09-1491-001;
ER96-1947-027; ER98-2783-017; ER99-2157-014.
    Applicants: Bluegrass Generation Company, LLC, Las Vegas Power
Company, LLC, DeSoto County Generating Company, LLC, Griffith Energy
LLC, Bridgeport Energy, LLC, Rocky Road Power, LLC, Riverside
Generating Company, LLC, LS Power Marketing, LLC, Renaissance Power,
LLC, Tilton Energy LLC, Arlington Valley, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Arlington Valley,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-469-000.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: NU Companies submits tariff sheets for the termination
of two interconnection agreements.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-470-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits a Network
Integration Transmission Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-471-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits Rate Schedule 336,
the Power Purchaser Agreements between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-473-000.
    Applicants: The United Illuminating Company.
    Description: The United Illuminating Company submits Notice of
Termination of the Localized Costs Sharing Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-474-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: San Diego Gas & Electric Co submits Ninth Revised
Sheet No. 121 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 11.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-475-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits executed
interconnection service agreement among PJM as the Transmission
Provider et al. as the Interconnected Transmission Owner etc.

    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-478-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revised tariff sheets
of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-479-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits a proposed ISO Tariff amendment that will enable the ISO to
procure incremental Ancillary Services from external Non-Dynamic System
etc.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-480-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits an updated Interconnection
Agreement wit the State of California Department of Water Resources
designated as First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 241.
    Filed Date: 12/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-482-000; ER10-483-000; ER10-484-000; ER10-485-
000; ER10-486-000; ER10-487-000; ER10-488-000; ER10-489-000; ER10-490-
000; ER10-491-000; ER10-492-000; ER10-493-000; ER10-494-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc.; CinCap IV,
LLC; CinCap V LLC; Cinergy Capital & Trading, Inc.; Cinergy Power
Investments, Inc.; St. Paul Congeneration, LLC; Duke Energy Trading &
Marketing, LLC; CinCap IV, LLC; Cincap V, LLC; Cinergy Capital &
Trading, Inc.; Cinergy Power Investments, Inc.; St. Paul Cogeneration,
LLC; Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc submits FERC
Electric notice of succession and clean copy of DECE's FERC Electric
Rate Schedule 1 effective 11/25/09.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-497-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp submits a Notice of
Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 41 et al.
    Filed Date: 12/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 13, 2010.
    Docket Numbers: ER10-511-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed service
agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service between
Southwest Power Pool, Inc et al.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-512-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Meter
Agent Service agreement with Lincoln Electric System etc.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-513-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed service
agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between
Southwest Power Pool, Inc et al.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-514-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits their Adjacent Balancing Authority Coordination Agreement with
the Big Rivers Electric Corporation etc.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-515-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Southwestern Public Service Company submits an
executed copy of the Second Amended and Restated Transaction Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-516-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company submits revised
tariff sheets changing the transmission rates under SCE&G's Open Access
Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-518-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Service
Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service between SPP as
Transmission Provider and Westar Energy.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-523-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: New England Power Company submits Amendments to
Integrated Facilities Agreements and Service Agreements under FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-524-000; ER10-525-000; ER10-526-000; ER10-527-
000; ER10-528-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company; Deseret Generation & Transmission
Co-op.; NorthWestern Corporation; PacifiCorp; Portland General Electric
Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Co et al submits Second Revised Rate
Schedule FERC No. 152 et al.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-529-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits amendments to
Schedule 12-Appendix.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0240.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-530-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-531-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits a Network
Integration Transmission Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0242.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-532-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES10-21-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.
    Description: Application by AEP Texas North Company Under Section
204 of the Federal Power Act for Authorization to Issue Securities.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091229-5041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH10-6-000.
    Applicants: General Electric Company.
    Description: Exemption Notification (Form FERC-65A) of General
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091229-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: PH10-7-000.
    Applicants: BlackRock, Inc.
    Description: FERC 65A--Exemption Notification of Status as Passive
Investors of BlackRock, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 21, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RD10-9-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Errata Petition of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation for Approval of Corrected Reliability Standard
FAC-010-2--System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning
Horizon.
    Filed Date: 11/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091120-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 25, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-481 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7681-7682]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0791; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-13]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Shenandoah, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Shenandoah Municipal Airport,
Shenandoah, IA. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Shenandoah non-
directional radio beacon (NDB), which provided navigation information
for the instrument procedures at this airport. Airspace redesign is
necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-0791; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-13, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Shenandoah Municipal Airport, Shenandoah, IA, to
support IFR operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those

comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-0791 Airspace
Docket No. 19-ACE-13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius
(increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of the Shenandoah Municipal Airport.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Shenandoah NDB, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8,
2019, and effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Shenandoah, IA [Amended]

Shenandoah Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 40[deg]45'06'' N, long. 95[deg]24'49'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Shenandoah Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 4, 2020.
Marty Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-02600 Filed 2-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86323-86324]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF24-2-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 5, 2023, Western Area Power
Administration submitted tariff filing: DSW OneTxRate WAPA209-20231205
to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or

protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the
comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 4, 2023.

    Dated: December 7, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27327 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P