[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 60341-60345]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-15-000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed East to West Hubline
Expansion Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and
Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

October 16, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will identify and address the environmental impacts that could result
from the construction and operation of the East to West HubLine
Expansion Project (E2W Project or Project). The E2W Project is proposed
by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Spectra Energy Corp. The Commission will use
the EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether or not to
authorize the Project. This notice describes the proposed Project
facilities and explains the scoping process that will be used to gather
input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. Your
input will help determine the issues that need to be evaluated in the
EIS. Please note that the scoping period for the Project will close on
November 21, 2007.
    Comments on the Project may be submitted in written form or
verbally. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, you
are invited to attend the public scoping meetings that have been
scheduled in the Project area. These meetings are scheduled for
November 5, 2007 in Randolph, Massachusetts; November 7, 2007 in North
Andover, Massachusetts; and November 8, 2007 in Norwich, Connecticut.
Further instructions on how to submit comments and additional details
of the public scoping meetings are provided in the Public Participation
section of this notice.
    The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the
EIS and will prepare the document to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The document will be used by
the FERC to consider the environmental impacts that could result if it
authorizes Algonquin's Project by issuing a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. It is
the FERC's goal that other federal agencies will participate in the
environmental review process as cooperating agencies to satisfy their
respective NEPA responsibilities.
    The Project must also undergo an environmental review pursuant to
the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (MEEA) is the lead
state agency with responsibility for ensuring compliance with the MEPA
regulations for interstate natural gas pipeline projects. The MEPA
regulations allow use of a Special Review Procedure that would
establish a coordinated review of the Project by the FERC and the MEEA.
Establishment of a coordinated review would enable the NEPA EIS (plus
an addendum document) to serve as the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
required by MEPA. It is anticipated that the FERC and the MEEA will
conduct a coordinated NEPA/MEPA review of the E2W Project to the
maximum extent feasible.
    The Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board (MEFSB) is an
independent board that licenses major energy facilities in
Massachusetts and is charged with ensuring a reliable energy supply for
the Commonwealth with a minimum impact on the environment at the lowest
possible cost. The MEFSB has no authority over the siting of interstate
natural gas facilities; however, it represents the citizens of
Massachusetts before the FERC on cases involving the construction of
applicable energy infrastructure in Massachusetts. The two
Massachusetts public scoping meetings announced in this notice will be
joint scoping meetings with participation by the MEFSB.
    The Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) is an independent board that
licenses major energy facilities in Connecticut. The CSC regulates
facility siting to balance the need for adequate and reliable public
services at the lowest reasonable cost to consumers with the need to
protect the environment and ecology of the state. Similar to the MEFSB,
the CSC has no authority over the siting of interstate natural gas
facilities; however, it may become a party before the FERC on cases
involving the construction of applicable energy infrastructure in
Connecticut. The CSC will participate in the FERC's Connecticut scoping
meeting and will announce independent hearings at a later date.

    With this notice, we \1\ are asking these and other federal, state,
and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with
respect to environmental issues and leaders of tribal nations to
cooperate formally with us in the preparation of the EIS. These
agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated Algonquin's
proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies that would like
to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing
comments described in the Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to affected landowners, including
landowners potentially affected by some of the alternatives under
consideration; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected
officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American
tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.
We encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by an Algonquin representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed Project facilities.
Algonquin would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the Project is approved by the FERC, that approval conveys
with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact

sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the
use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Algonquin proposes to modify portions of its existing pipeline
system in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New
Jersey. The E2W Project consists of the construction and operation of
46.1 miles of various diameter pipeline and associated ancillary
pipeline facilities. Of this total, 13.0 miles consist of new pipeline
in Massachusetts and 33.1 miles consist of the replacement of existing
pipeline in Massachusetts and Connecticut. A significant portion of the
46.1 miles of the proposed pipeline facilities would be either within
the existing Algonquin right-of-way or adjacent to an existing
powerline right-of-way. No new right-of-way corridors would be created
based on the alignment as currently proposed with the exception of
several minor alignment deviations to facilitate construction.
    In addition, Algonquin proposes to construct 2 new compressor
stations in Massachusetts, install over-pressure protection regulation
at 4 sites in Massachusetts, and install minor modifications at 5
existing compressor stations and 29 existing meter stations along
Algonquin's system in the 5 Project states as described below. A
general overview of the major Project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
) at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's

Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the Availability of Additional
Information section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were
sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for
detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made directly to
Algonquin by calling 1-800-788-4143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the facilities proposed by Algonquin include the
following:
     I-10 Extension--construction of approximately 13.0 miles
of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts;
     Q-1 System Replacement--installation of approximately 18.5
miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline that would replace a segment of an
existing 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts;
     E-3 System Replacement--installation of approximately 11.0
miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline that would replace a segment of an
existing 6- and 4-inch-diameter pipeline in New London County,
Connecticut;
     C-1 System Replacement--installation of approximately 3.6
miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline that would replace a segment of an
existing 10-inch-diameter pipeline in New Haven County, Connecticut;
     Two new compressor stations including:
    [cir] Boxford Compressor Station--a 10,300-horsepower (hp)
compressor station in Essex County, Massachusetts; and
    [cir] Rehoboth Compressor Station--a 15,000-hp compressor station
in Bristol County, Massachusetts;
     Modifications to five existing compressor stations to
accommodate bi-directional flow along Algonquin's system including:
     [cir] Burrillville Compressor Station in Providence County, Rhode
Island;
     [cir] Chaplin Compressor Station in Windham County, Connecticut;
     [cir] Cromwell Compressor Station in Middlesex County,
Connecticut;
     [cir] Southeast Compressor Station in Putnam County, New York; and
     [cir] Hanover Compressor Station in Morris County, New Jersey;
     Aboveground over-pressure protection regulation at two
existing meter stations (Weymouth and Sharon Meter Stations) and at two
new regulator stations (end of the I-10 Extension and end of the Q-1
System) along the Algonquin system in Massachusetts;
     Installation of gas chromatographs at 29 existing meter
stations in Massachusetts (9), Connecticut (11), Rhode Island (2), New
York (5), and New Jersey (2);
     Installation of mainline valves along the proposed
pipeline facilities in Massachusetts and Connecticut; and
     Installation of pig \3\ launcher and receiver facilities
to connect with the existing Algonquin facilities in Massachusetts and
Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry
a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Algonquin indicates that the proposed Project would provide
increased natural gas supplies and enhanced system reliability to
natural gas distributors throughout the New England region. Once
completed, the Project would be capable of transporting up to 1.145
million dekatherms per day of natural gas from increased gas supplies,
including liquefied natural gas-source gas, entering the eastern end of
the Algonquin system for redelivery to high growth markets in the
Northeast region.
    Algonquin anticipates that construction of the E2W Project would
begin in April 2009, with a projected in-service date of November 2009.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Algonquin indicates that construction of its proposed pipeline and
aboveground facilities would require about 482 acres of land, including
land requirements for the construction right-of-way, temporary extra
work areas, access roads, pipe storage and contractor yards, and
aboveground facilities. Following construction, about 253 acres of land
would be retained as permanent right-of-way for the pipeline and
operation of the aboveground

facility sites. The remaining 229 acres of land would be restored and
allowed to revert to its former use.
    The centerline of the proposed I-10 Extension pipeline would
generally be situated 5 feet inside the existing NSTAR Gas & Electric
Corporation (NSTAR) powerline right-of-way. The pipelines for the Q-1,
E-3, and C-1 Systems would be installed in the same trench as the
pipelines they are replacing to the extent practicable. This same-
trench replacement method of construction is referred to by Algonquin
as the take-up and relay method. In general, the construction rights-
of-way for the new and replacement pipelines would range from 75 to 85
feet wide with additional temporary workspace needed at certain feature
crossings and to stockpile trench spoil and rock generated from trench
excavation. For the majority of the route, the construction rights-of-
way would overlap the existing, cleared permanent rights-of-way of
Algonquin and NSTAR by various amounts. After construction, a 30-to 50-
foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be retained.
    The proposed Boxford Compressor Station would require approximately
8.2 acres of land for permanent development of the compressor station
and associated roads and piping. However, Algonquin is considering the
acquisition of land parcels totaling approximately 157 acres for the
station. An alternative site to the Boxford Compressor Station,
referred to as the Danvers Compressor Station Site Alternative, is also
under consideration. The alternative site is approximately 50 acres in
size and is located northwest and adjacent to the Danvers Landfill. The
proposed Rehoboth Compressor Station would require approximately 8.8
acres of land for permanent development of the compressor station and
associated roads and piping. Algonquin is considering the acquisition
of land parcels totaling approximately 97 acres for the Rehoboth
Compressor Station.
    The modifications to the five existing compressor stations would
occur within the fenceline of the existing developed compressor station
sites. The over-pressure protection regulation at the two existing
meter stations would be installed within previously disturbed areas at
the meter station sites. The over-pressure regulator stations at the
two new sites would require approximately 1 acre at each site. The
installation of gas chromatographs at the 29 existing meter stations
along the Algonquin system would occur within the fenceline of the
existing developed meter station site. The mainline valves and pig
launchers and receivers would be installed within the permanent right-
of-way and would not require additional land.

The EIS Process

    NEPA requires the FERC to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The EIS
we are preparing is intended to give the FERC and cooperating agencies
the necessary information to consider potential environmental impacts
during each agency's respective review.
    Although no formal application has been filed with the FERC, we
have already initiated our NEPA review under the FERC's Pre-Filing
Process, which was established in Docket No. RM05-31-000 and Order No.
665. The purpose of the Pre-Filing Process is to encourage the early
involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve
issues before an application is filed with the FERC. The MEEA, MEFSB,
and CSC have agreed to begin their reviews in conjunction with the Pre-
Filing Process to the extent feasible. A diagram summarizing the
environmental review process for the Project is attached to this notice
as Appendix 2.
    The FERC staff has already started to meet with Algonquin,
jurisdictional agencies, and other interested stakeholders to discuss
the Project and identify issues and concerns. As part of our Pre-Filing
Process review, representatives from the FERC participated in public
open houses sponsored by Algonquin in the Project area between
September 25 and October 11, 2007 to explain the environmental review
process to interested stakeholders and take comments about the Project.
During November 2007, we plan to continue the Pre-Filing Process review
by conducting interagency and public scoping meetings in the Project
area to solicit comments and concerns about the Project.
    By this notice, we are formally announcing our preparation of the
EIS and requesting additional agency and public comments to help us
focus the analysis in the EIS on the potentially significant
environmental issues related to the proposed action. If you provide
comments at a scoping meeting, you do not need to resubmit the same
comments in response to this notice.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft
EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; affected and potentially
affected landowners; other interested parties; local libraries and
newspapers; and the FERC's official service list for this proceeding. A
45-day comment period will be allotted for review of the draft EIS. We
will consider all timely comments on the draft EIS and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. The comment period
on the draft EIS will be coordinated to the extent possible with other
jurisdictional agencies.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed Project. We have already
identified a number of issues and alternatives that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities, the
environmental information provided by Algonquin, and the scoping
comments received to date. This preliminary list of issues and
alternatives may be changed based on your comments and our additional
analysis.
     Geology and Soils:
     [cir] Assessment of potential geological hazards.
     [cir] Erosion and sedimentation control.
     [cir] Assessment of invasive weed control plans.
     [cir] Right-of-way restoration.
     Water Resources:
     [cir] Impact on groundwater supplies.
     [cir] Evaluation of temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands,
restoration of wetlands, and development of appropriate wetland
mitigation options.
     [cir] Effect of pipeline crossings on perennial and intermittent
waterbodies, including Norwichtown Brook, Bobbin Mill Brook, Main
Brook, Honeypot Brook, and an unnamed tributary to the Quinnipiac
River.
     [cir] Assessment of methods to cross major waterbodies, including
the Weymouth Fore, Charles, and Neponset Rivers in Massachusetts and
the Shetucket River in Connecticut.
     [cir] Assessment of contingency plans for frac-outs associated
with horizontal directional drills.
     [cir] Assessment of alternative waterbody crossing methods.
     Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation:
     [cir] Effect on coldwater and sensitive fisheries and essential
fish habitat.
     [cir] Impacts on vernal pools.
     [cir] Effect on wildlife resources and their habitat.
     [cir] Effect on migratory birds.
     [cir] Assessment of construction time window restrictions.

     [cir] Effect on riparian vegetation.
     [cir] Assessment of measures to successfully revegetate the right-
of-way.
     Special Status Species:
     [cir] Potential effect on federally listed species.
     [cir] Potential effect on state-listed sensitive species,
including the Eastern box turtle, bridle shiner, oak hairstreak, mocha
emerald, and blue-spotted salamander.
     Cultural Resources:
     [cir] Effect on historic and prehistoric sites.
     [cir] Native American and tribal concerns.
     Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and
Visual Resources:
     [cir] Impacts on residential areas.
     [cir] Blasting in proximity to residences.
     [cir] Impacts on the Cranberry Brook Watershed Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC).
     [cir] Visual impacts.
     Socioeconomics:
     [cir] Effects on transportation and traffic.
     [cir] Effects of construction workforce demands on public services
and temporary housing.
     Air Quality and Noise:
     [cir] Effects on the local air quality and noise environment from
construction and operation of the proposed facilities.
     Reliability and Safety:
     [cir] Assessment of hazards associated with natural gas pipelines.
     Alternatives:
     [cir] Assessment of existing systems, alternative system
configurations, and alternative routes to reduce or avoid environmental
impacts.
     [cir] Evaluation of alternatives to avoid the Cranberry Brook
Watershed ACEC.
     [cir] Assessment of alternative compressor station locations,
including the Danvers Compressor Station Site Alternative to the
Boxford Compressor Station.
     Cumulative Impact:
     [cir] Assessment of the effect of the proposed Project when
combined with other past, present, or future actions in the same
region.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about Algonquin's proposal. By becoming a
commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the FERC's EIS and
considered during the MEPA review. Your comments should focus on the
potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures
to avoid or lessen the environmental impact. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be. To expedite our receipt and
consideration of your comments, the Commission strongly encourages
electronic submission of any comments on this Project. See Title 18
Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on
the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the

``eFiling'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can
submit comments you will need to create a free account by clicking on
``Sign-up'' under ``New User.'' You will be asked to select the type of
submission you are making. This type of submission is considered a
``Comment on Filing.'' Your comments must be submitted electronically
by November 21, 2007.
    If you wish to mail comments, please mail your comments so that
they will be received in Washington, DC and Boston, Massachusetts on or
before November 21, 2007 and carefully follow these instructions:
    Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
     Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of the
Gas Branch 3, DG2E;
     Reference Docket No. PF07-15-000 on the original and both
copies; and
     Send an additional copy of your letter to:

Selma H. Urman, Esq., Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board, One
South Station, Boston, MA 02110; or
Christine Lepage, Connecticut Siting Council, Ten Franklin Square, New
Britain, CT 06051.

    Your letters to the MEFSB or CSC should also reference Docket No.
PF07-15-000.
    Three public scoping meetings have been scheduled in the Project
area to provide another opportunity to offer comments on the proposed
Project. The two public scoping meetings in Massachusetts will be joint
scoping meetings with participation by the MEFSB pursuant to its
responsibilities outlined in 980 Code of Massachusetts Regulations
section 7.07(9)(a).\4\ Interested groups and individuals are encouraged
to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental
issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of the
meetings will be generated so that your comments will be accurately
recorded. All meetings will begin at 7 p.m. (EST) and end at 10 p.m.,
at the following locations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A separate scoping meeting for the MEPA process will be
scheduled by the MEEA at a later date.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 5, 2007..........  Holiday Inn Boston-Randolph, 1374
                                     North Main Street, Randolph, MA
                                     02368,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007.......  Knights of Columbus Hall, 505 Sutton
                                     Street, North Andover, MA 01845,
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thursday, November 8, 2007........  Norwich City Hall, Room 335, 100
                                     Broadway, Norwich, CT 06360.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once Algonquin formally files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to
the proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    Everyone who responds to this notice or provides comments
throughout the EIS process will be retained on the mailing list. If you
do not want to send

comments at this time but still want to stay informed and receive
copies of the draft and final EISs, you must return the Mailing List
Retention Form (Appendix 3). If you do not send comments or return the
Mailing List Retention Form asking to remain on the mailing list, you
will be taken off the mailing list.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''

link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and
enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket
Number field (i.e., PF07-15). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as Orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
.

    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx

along with other related information.
    To request additional information on the proposed Project or to
provide comments directly to the Project sponsor, you can contact
Algonquin by calling toll free at 1-800-788-4143. Also, Algonquin has
established an Internet Web site at http://www.easttowestexpansion.com.

The Web site includes a description of the Project, an overview map of
the pipeline route, links to related documents, and photographs of the
Project area. Algonquin will update the Web site as the environmental
review of its Project proceeds.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20874 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34362-34364]
[DOCID:fr17jn10-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0452]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Festivals & Fireworks Celebration, East Moran Bay,
Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
East Moran Bay, Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI. This zone is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Huron during the Festivals &
Fireworks Celebration fireworks display taking place on ten separate
occasions from June 26, 2010 through September 5, 2010. This temporary
safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. on June 26, 2010 until 11
p.m. on September 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0452 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0452 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail BMC Gregory Ford, Marine Event
Coordinator, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie; telephone 906-
635-3222, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    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 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is contrary to the public interest
to delay the effective date of this rule. Delaying the effective date
by first publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the safety zone's
intended objective since immediate action is needed to protect person's
and vessels against the hazards associated with fireworks displays on
navigable waters. Such hazards include premature detonations, dangerous
detonations, dangerous projectiles and falling or burning debris.
Additionally, the zone should have negligible impact on vessel transits
due to the fact that vessels will be limited from the area for only two
hours on the specified dates and vessels can still transit in the
majority of East Moran Bay during the event. Accordingly, under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing an NPRM.
    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. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators
and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to
prevent possible loss of life or property.

Basis and Purpose

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks
display. Based on the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of
the Port Sault Sainte Marie has determined that fireworks launches
proximate to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and
property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation
vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of
light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily
result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to
control vessel movement

around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety
of persons and property at these events and help minimize the
associated risks.

Discussion of Rule

    A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels during the setup and launching of fireworks
displays in conjunction with the Festivals & Fireworks Celebration
fireworks displays. The fireworks display will occur between 9 p.m. and
11 p.m. on the following dates: June 26, July 10, July 17, July 24,
July 31, August 7, August 14, August 21, August 28, and September 4,
2010. If a fireworks display is cancelled due to inclement weather, the
fireworks display will occur between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on the day
following the originally scheduled date. The safety zone for the
fireworks will encompass all waters of Lake Huron within a 600-foot
radius from the fireworks launch site in East Moran Bay, with its
center in position: 45[deg]52'16.92'' N. 084[deg]43'18.48'' W.: [DATUM:
NAD 83].
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector
Sault Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the
Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation will restrict
access to the area, the effect of the rule will not be significant
because: vessels will be restricted from the zone for a minimal time
and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant
adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of East Moran Bay, Lake Huron, St.
Ignace, MI between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on June 26, July 10, July 17,
July 24, July 31, August 7, August 14, August 21, August 28, and
September 4, 2010.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will be in effect for two hours on 10 different evenings from June
26, 2010 through September 5, 2010. Vessel traffic can safely pass
outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this
temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request
permission from the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie to transit
through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public
via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
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 is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule establishes a safety zone. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0452 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0452  Safety Zone; Festivals & Fireworks Celebration,
East Moran Bay, Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
waters of Lake Huron within a 600-foot radius from the fireworks launch
site in East Moran Bay, with its center in position: 45[deg]52'16.92''
N., 084[deg]43'18.48'' W.: [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (b) Effective period. This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. on
June 26, 2010 until 11 p.m. on September 5, 2010.
    (1) This rule will be enforced on the following date and times:
    (i) June 26, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m., with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of June 27, 2010 from 9 p.m. through
11 p.m.
    (ii) July 10, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of July 11, 2010 from 9 p.m. through
11 p.m.
    (iii) July 17, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of July 18, 2010 from 9 p.m. through
11 p.m.
    (iv) July 24, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of July 25, 2010 from 9 p.m. through
11 p.m.
    (v) July 31, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of August 1, 2010 from 9 p.m. through
11 p.m.
    (vi) August 7, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of August 8, 2010 from 9 p.m. through
11 p.m.
    (vii) August 14, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of August 15, 2010 from 9 p.m.
through 11 p.m.
    (viii) August 21, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an
alternate date & time for inclement weather of August 22, 2010 from 9
p.m. through 11 p.m.
    (ix) August 28, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of August 29, 2010 from 9 p.m.
through 11 p.m.
    (x) September 4, 2010 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. with an alternate
date & time for inclement weather of September 5, 2010 from 9 p.m.
through 11 p.m.
    (2) The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie may suspend
at any time the enforcement of any safety zone established under this
section.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, will notify
the public of the enforcement and suspension of enforcement of a safety
zone established by this section via any means that will provide as
much notice as possible to the public. These means might include some
or all of those listed in 33 CFR 165.7(a). The primary method of
notification, however, will be through Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
local Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
an enforced safety zone established by this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte
Marie, or his on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or
his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, to act on his behalf. The on-scene
representative of the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie,
will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within an
enforced safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector
Sault Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative to obtain permission
to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his
on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: June 4, 2010.
M.J. Huebschman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2010-14587 Filed 6-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="18/05/2008 03:25:45 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12196-12197]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0011]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2016-0011 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Block, Office of Behavioral
Safety Research (NPD-310), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-499, Washington, DC
20590. Mr. Block's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and his email address
is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) 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;
    (ii) 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;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, 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.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: Awareness & Availability of Child Passenger Safety
Information Resources (AACPSIR).
    Type of Request: New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number: None.
    Form Number: NHTSA Forms 1333 and 1334.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes to conduct a national
web-based survey to estimate parent and caregiver general knowledge of
child passenger safety (CPS) information resources, awareness and use
of child restraint system (CRS) inspection stations, and reported
barriers to CRS inspection station use. The survey will also examine
the relationship between parent and caregiver confidence in installing
CRSs, risk perception, and intent to visit an inspection station. NHTSA
will contact a maximum of 32,000 households to obtain 1,400 completed
interviews. NHTSA will use a 5 minute screening instrument to determine
survey eligibility. Households will be eligible if they have at least
one adult who regularly travels with a child between the ages of 0 and
9 in their personal vehicles. Households with an eligible participant
will be asked by NHTSA to complete a 15 minute interview. Spanish
translation services will be provided.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--NHTSA was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970
(23 U.S.C. 101) to carry out a Congressional mandate to reduce the
mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from
motor vehicle crashes on the Nation's highways. As part of this
statutory mandate, NHTSA is authorized to

conduct research as a foundation for the development of motor vehicle
standards and traffic safety programs.
    Data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System show that an
average of 3 children under the age of 14 died each day in traffic
crashes in 2013 and an estimated 470 children were injured. Child
restraint systems (CRSs) are effective at reducing the risk of injury
during motor vehicle crashes. Research has shown a 28% reduction in
risk of death for children (aged 2-6 years) compared to seat belts when
CRSs are installed correctly. Studies have estimated rates of improper
installation of CRSs to be in the range of 70-80 percent.
    Many information resources are available to aid parents and
caregivers with proper child restraint system selection and
installation, including hands-on instruction. In 1998, NHTSA
implemented a program for training and certifying child passenger
safety technicians (CPSTs). Presently, Safe Kids Worldwide hosts Child
Car Seat Inspection Stations nationwide which provide parents and
caregivers an opportunity to receive one-on-one instruction regarding
proper use and installation of child restraints from a certified CPST.
Research has shown that hands-on instruction on CRS installation is
effective in reducing misuse of seats. Unfortunately, this resource
seems to be underutilized. Only about one out of ten drivers
interviewed for the National Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS)
reported having their CRS inspected at an inspection station.
    At present, it is unclear what deters and what encourages use of
Child Car Seat Inspection Stations and CPSTs. One potential barrier is
parent/caregiver overconfidence leading to overconfident parents and
caregivers not recognizing the need to visit an inspection station or
CPST. One example of this is the NCRUSS where misuse was observed in
46% of cases, but where most drivers reported being confident or very
confident that they chose the correct car seat/booster seat and
installed the car seat/booster seat correctly. Potential barriers to
use don't stop with overconfidence; they could also include logistical
and practical matters, such as awareness and accessibility.
    Identifying and better understanding the barriers that result in
underutilization of inspection stations will allow NHTSA and other
child passenger safety stakeholders to develop effective programs that
promote and encourage use of this important life-saving resource.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
Under this proposed data collection, the potential respondent universe
would be people aged 18 years or older who regularly transport children
between the ages of 0 and 9 in their personal vehicles. NHTSA will send
survey requests to a sufficient number of households to obtain 1,400
completed interviews. The requests will be sent via postal mail.
    Respondents within a household would not be randomly selected.
Rather, the screener would ask the member of the household who most
frequently drives children to complete the survey. NHTSA considers this
to be the person in the household most likely to seek CPS information
and pursue CPS training at an inspection station, and therefore the
most appropriate respondent for this survey. Each respondent would
complete a single survey; there will be no request for additional
follow-up information or response.
    Throughout the project, the privacy of all participants would be
protected. Access to the online instrument would be controlled using an
alphanumeric PIN, with access restricted to using encrypted connection
via Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) certificates. To protect the online
instruments from break-in attempts, the public site would feature
automatic access lockdown after too many unsuccessful login attempts
are performed within a short amount of time. Similarly, once an
interview is completed, the survey would no longer be accessible to
respondents using their PINs. These two measures protect respondent
responses from being compromised.
    Personally-identifiable information such as the postal address of
sample members would be kept separate from the data collected, and
would be stored in restricted folders on secure password protected
servers that are only accessible to study staff who have need to access
such information. In addition, all data collected from respondents will
be reported in aggregate, and identifying information would not be used
in any reports resulting from this data collection effort. Rigorous de-
identification procedures would be used during summary and feedback
stages to prevent respondents from being identified through
reconstructive means.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that the
total respondent burden for this data collection would be 942 hours. A
sufficient number of invitation letters would be distributed for 7,000
potential respondents to log onto the Web site and take a 5 minute
eligibility screener (7,000 * 5 minutes = 35,000 minutes/60 = 583
hours). Of those who take the eligibility screener, NHTSA estimates
that 1,400 would complete the full survey which would average 15
minutes in length (1,400 * 15 minutes = 21,000 minutes/60 = 350 hours).
The data collection would also include 9 hours of burden for 9 people
to complete usability testing at 1 hour each to aid survey instrument
development (9 * 1 hour = 9 hours). The participants would not incur
any reporting cost from the information collection. The participants
would also not incur any record keeping burden or record keeping cost
from the information collection.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 3, 2016.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2016-05091 Filed 3-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78927-78928]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30591]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73929; File No. SR-NSCC-2014-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Addendum A (Fee Structure) With Respect to Fees
Related to NSCC's Obligation Warehouse Service

December 23, 2014.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on December 17, 2014, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of
the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder. The proposed rule change
was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to Addendum A of
the Rules & Procedures (``Rules'') of NSCC in order to adjust certain
fees related to NSCC's Obligation Warehouse service, as more fully
described below.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise NSCC's fee
schedule (as listed in Addendum A of the Rules) in order to adjust
certain fees related to NSCC's Obligation Warehouse (``OW''), a non-
guaranteed, automated service that tracks, stores, and maintains
unsettled ex-clearing and failed obligations, as well as obligations
exited from NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (``CNS'') system, non-CNS
Automated Customer Account Transfer Service (``ACATS'') Receive and
Deliver Instructions, Balance Orders, and Special Trades, as such terms
are defined in the Rules. The OW service provides transparency, serves
as a central storage of open (i.e. failed or unsettled) broker-to-
broker obligations, and allows users to manage and resolve exceptions
in an efficient and timely manner.
    Currently, NSCC charges a fee to the recipient of a delivery
notification request advisory, which informs the recipient that the
submitting party has acknowledged that an OW obligation between those
parties has settled, if that notification is aged two days or older
(``Aged Delivery Advisories''); and also charges a fee to the recipient
of a pending cancel request advisory, which requests that the recipient
cancel a previously compared OW obligation, if that request is aged two
days or older (``Aged Cancel Advisories''). NSCC is proposing to revise
its fee schedule to increase the fees charged for Aged Delivery
Advisories and Aged Cancel Advisories as marked on Exhibit 5 hereto.\5\
The increase in these fees would encourage more timely action by the
recipients of these advisories, and would align the fees associated
with the OW service with the costs of delivering that service to NSCC's
Members. NSCC also proposes to remove notations in Addendum A related
to the phased-in implementation for fees charged for each pending
comparison advisory that are aged 5 days or older.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that Exhibit 5 is attached to the
filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is marked on Exhibit 5 hereto as
amendments to Addendum A to NSCC's Rules. No other changes to the Rules
are contemplated by this proposed rule change. The proposed fee change
would take effect on January 1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, in particular section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act,\6\ which requires that the Rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its participants. The proposed rule change would align NSCC's
fees with the costs of delivering services to NSCC Members, and would
allocate those fees equitably among the NSCC Members that use those
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. As stated above, the
proposed change would align NSCC's fees with the costs of delivering
services to its Members, and would not disproportionally impact any
NSCC Members.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \8\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2014-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2014-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
DTCC's Web site at http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2014-13 and should be
submitted on or before January 21, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30591 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13246-13248]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0098]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; State Route 520 Bridge Construction, Lake
Washington; Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Washington around the east span of the State Route 520 Bridge in
Seattle, Washington for the construction of the new bridge. The safety
zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public and
workers involved in the bridge construction. The safety zone will
prohibit any person or vessel from

entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 13, 2015
until May 30, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will
be used from the date the rule was signed, February 18, 2015, until
March 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2015-0098. 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. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email BM2 Ryan Griffin, Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    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 because publishing an NPRM would be
impracticable as delayed promulgation may result in injury or damage to
the maritime public, vessel crews, the vessels themselves, and the
facilities prior to conclusion of a notice and comment period.
    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. Delaying the effective date until
30 days after publication would be contrary to public interest, as this
delay would eliminate the safety zone's effectiveness and usefulness in
protecting persons, property, and the safe navigation of maritime
traffic before 30 days have elapsed.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish
safety and security zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and
environmental purposes, described in 33 CFR part 165.
    The State Route 520 Bridge is the longest floating bridge in the
world that has a span of 1.4 miles across Lake Washington and is
supported by 33 pontoons.
    The State Route 520 Bridge is being replaced, and those efforts
include upgrading the bridge's floating pontoons for larger ones.
During the bridge replacement project, construction barges will
occasionally need to block the waterway that runs beneath the east span
of the bridge. As a result, the Coast Guard is establishing a temporary
safety zone which is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime
public and workers involved in the bridge construction.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone which encompasses all
waters within 100 yards of the east span of the State Route 520 Bridge,
located on Lake Washington at the following point: 47[deg]38'16.4'' N,
122[deg]14'31.4'' W.
    Vessels wishing to enter the zone must request permission for entry
by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Once
permission for entry is granted vessels must proceed at a minimum speed
for safe navigation.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action as the safety zone is both limited in
size and duration.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit the affected waterway during the period mentioned.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the zone established in
this rule is limited in size and duration.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. 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. 3501-3State Route 520).

5. 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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a 100 yard temporary safety zone around
the east span of the State Route 520 Bridge. The rule will prevent any
vessel from approaching within 100 yards of the east span during
periods of construction with permission of the Captain of the Port.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-283 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-283  Safety Zone; State Route 520 Bridge, Lake
Washington; Seattle, WA.

    (a) Location. The following areas are designated as a safety zone:
All waters within 100 yards of the east span of the State Route 520
Bridge, located on Lake Washington at the following point:
47[deg]38'16.4'' N, 122[deg]14'31.4'' W.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C, vessels wishing to enter the zone must request
permission for entry by contacting the Joint Harbor Operation Center at
206-217-6001. Once permission for entry is granted vessels must proceed
at a minimum speed for safe navigation.
    (c) Dates. This rule will be enforced on days during which
construction operations occur, from 3 a.m. to 11 a.m., or until the
construction barge has departed from the waterway under the east span,
starting on February 18, 2015, until May 30, 2015.

    Dated: February 18, 2015.
M. W. Raymond,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2015-05741 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40740-40742]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0630]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Mackinac Bridge Birthday Fireworks, Lake Huron, St.
Ignace, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI. This zone is intended to restrict vessels
from a portion of Lake Huron during the Mackinac Bridge Birthday
Fireworks, July 26, 2008 fireworks display. This temporary safety zone
is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards
associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 26,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0630 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Sault Ste. Marie, 337 Water St., Sault Ste. Marie,
MI 49783 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call LCDR Christopher Friese, Prevention Dept. Chief,
Sector Sault Ste. Marie, 337 Water St., Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783;
906-635-3220. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    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 an agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the permit application was not
received in time to publish a NPRM followed by a final rule before the
effective date.
    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. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators
and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to
prevent possible loss of life or property.

Background and Purpose

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks
display. Based on

accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and
the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Sault Ste.
Marie has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft
pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely
combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested
waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use,
and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious
injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel
movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure
the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize
the associated risks.

Discussion of Rule

    A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a
fireworks display in conjunction with the Mackinac Bridge Birthday
Fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9 p.m. and
11:59 p.m. on July 26, 2008.
    The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Lake
Huron within a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in East
Moran Bay, with its center in position: 45[deg]52.25' N, 084[deg]43.20'
W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector
Sault Ste. Marie, or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the
Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will
be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast
Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zone's
activation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Huron off St. Ignace, Michigan
between 9 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on July 26, 2008.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will be in effect for fewer than three hours for one event. Vessel
traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In
the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial
vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Sault Ste.
Marie to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give
notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is
in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights
protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that 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.
Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the
provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to
contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management
system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded,
based on the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone
therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies.
    A final environmental analysis check list and categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T09-0630 is added as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0630  Safety Zone; Mackinac Bridge Birthday Fireworks,
Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all
waters of Lake Huron within a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch
site with its center in position: 45[deg]52.25' N, 084[deg]43.20' W
[DATUM: NAD 83].
    (b) Effective period. This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. to
11:59 p.m. on July 26, 2008.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Sault Ste. Marie, or on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie or his on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. 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 Sault Ste. Marie or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 2, 2008.
M.J. Huebschman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie.
[FR Doc. E8-16168 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60834-60835]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR19-6-000]

Saddle Butte Pipeline III, LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary
Waiver

    Take notice that on November 14, 2018, Saddle Butte Pipeline III,
LLC (Saddle Butte) filed a petition seeking a temporary waiver of the
tariff filing and reporting requirements of sections 6 and 20 of the
Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. App. 6 and 20, and parts 341 and 357
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR parts
341 and 357 (2018), with respect to its Powder Flats System, which is a
crude petroleum gathering system located in Wyoming, all as more fully
explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies

of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on December 7, 2018.

    Dated: November 20, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25810 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P