Interagency Review
These documents reflect all correspondence between EPA and the Office of Management and Budget while the rule was being reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563.
   1.)    Index of Interagency communication (this document)
   2.)    Submission to OMB on December 28, 2012
   3.)    Teleconference with OMB and Agencies 1  -  January 14, 2013
   4.)    Request for Follow-up Discussion  -  email exchange between Nathan Frey, OMB/OIRA, and Drusilla Hufford, EPA  -  January 24-25, 2013
   5.)    EPA Response to Interagency Comments 1  -  email from David Donaldson, EPA, to Nathan Frey, OMB/OIRA, on January 25, 2013
   6.)    Teleconference with OMB and Agencies 2  -  January 31, 2013
   7.)    EPA Response to Interagency Comments 2  -  email from David Donaldson, EPA, to Nathan Frey, OMB/OIRA, on February 14, 2013
   8.)    Interagency Comments  -  email from Nathan Frey, OMB/OIRA, to David Donaldson, EPA, on February 25, 2013
   9.)    EPA Response to Interagency Comments 3  -  email from David Donaldson, EPA, to Nathan Frey, OMB/OIRA, on March 1, 2013
   10.)    EPA Response to Interagency Comments 4  -  email from David Donaldson, EPA, to Nathan Frey, OMB/OIRA, on March 5, 2013
   11.)    OMB Concurrence  -  email from Nathan Frey, OMB/OIRA, to David Donaldson, EPA, on March 15, 2013
   12.)    Final Proposed Rule Showing Changes

These emails and calendar entries document substantive dialogue between EPA and OMB. EPA has not included emails where the sole purpose was to determine a time to schedule a meeting or to provide a conference line.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40253-40255]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15915]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69871; File No. SR-EDGA-2013-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the EDGA Exchange, Inc.'s
Routing Broker Dealer, as Described in EDGA Rule 2.12(b)

June 27, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On May 16, 2013, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
make permanent the existing pilot program that permits the Exchange's
inbound router, as described in Rule 2.12(b), to receive inbound routes
of equities orders through Direct Edge ECN LLC d/b/a DE Route (``DE
Route''), the Exchange's routing broker dealer, from EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGX'') . The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on May 28, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposed rule change. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69613 (May 21,
2013), 78 FR 31996 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    DE Route is a registered broker-dealer that is a member of the
Exchange and is permitted to provide members of EDGX optional routing
services to other

trading centers.\4\ DE Route is owned by Direct Edge Holdings LLC (``DE
Holdings''). DE Holdings also owns two registered securities
exchanges--the Exchange and EDGX.\5\ Thus, DE Route is an affiliate of
the Exchange and EDGX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DE operates as a facility of EDGX that provides outbound
routing from EDGX to other trading centers, subject to certain
conditions. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61698 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (File No. 10-194 and 10-196)
(order granting the exchange registration of EDGA and EDGX.)
(``Exchange Registration Approval Order'').
    \5\ See id.
    \6\ See Exchange Registration Approval Order, 75 FR at 13165
n.219 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 12, 2010, the Commission approved the Exchange's application
for registration as a national securities exchange.\7\ As part of the
approval, the Exchange was approved to receive inbound routes of orders
that DE Route routes in its capacity as a facility of EDGX on a pilot
basis for 12 months.\8\ The pilot was originally set to expire on July
1, 2011, but was subsequently extended and is currently set to expire
on June 30, 2013.\9\ The Exchange now seeks permanent approval of this
inbound routing pilot.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Registration Approval Order, 75 FR 13151.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 64362 (April 28,
2011), 76 FR 25386 (May 4, 2011) (SR-EDGA-2011-13); and 66643 (March
22, 2012), 77 FR 18876 (March 28, 2012) (SR-EDGA-2012-10).
    \10\ See Notice, 78 FR 31996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\11\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\12\ which
requires, among other things, that a national securities exchange be so
organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act,
and to comply and enforce compliance by its members and persons
associated with its members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules
and regulation thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. Further, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and
equitable principles of trade; to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, and processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities; to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Section 6(b)(5) also
requires that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that the Commission has previously expressed concern
regarding the potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a
member firm is affiliated with an exchange to which it is routing
orders, the Exchange previously implemented limitations and conditions
to DE Route's affiliation with the Exchange to permit the Exchange to
accept inbound orders that DE Route routes in its capacity as a
facility of EDGX, on a pilot basis.\14\ The Exchange now seeks to make
this pilot permanent, subject to the same limitation and conditions.
Specifically, the Exchange committed to the following limitations and
conditions: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Registration Approval Order, 75 FR at 13165-
13166.
    \15\ See Notice, 78 FR at 31996-31997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange shall enter into a plan pursuant to Rule 17d-
2 under the Exchange Act with a non-affiliated self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') to relieve the Exchange of regulatory
responsibilities for DE Route with respect to rules that are common
rules between the Exchange and the non-affiliated SRO, and enter into a
regulatory contract (``Regulatory Contract'') with a non-affiliated SRO
to perform regulatory responsibilities for DE Route for unique Exchange
rules.
     The Regulatory Contract shall require the Exchange to
provide the non-affiliated SRO with information, in an easily
accessible manner, regarding all exception reports, alerts, complaints,
trading errors, cancellations, investigations, and enforcement matters
(collectively ``Exceptions'') in which DE Route is identified as a
participant that has potentially violated Exchange or Commission Rules,
and shall require that the non-affiliated SRO provide a report, at
least quarterly, to the Exchange quantifying all Exceptions in which DE
Route is identified as a participant that has potentially violated
Exchange or Commission Rules.
     The Exchange, on behalf of DE Holdings, shall establish
and maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to
ensure that DE Route does not develop or implement changes to its
system on the basis of non-public information regarding planned changes
to Exchange systems, obtained as a result of its affiliation with the
Exchange, until such information is available generally to similarly
situated members of the Exchange in connection with the provision of
inbound order routing to the Exchange.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission notes that this condition is set forth in
EDGA Rule 2.12(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that is has complied with the above-listed
conditions during the pilot.\17\ The Exchange believes that by meeting
such conditions it has set up mechanisms that protect the independence
of the Exchange's regulatory responsibility with respect to DE Route,
and has demonstrated that DE Route cannot use any information that it
may have because of its affiliation with the Exchange to its
advantage.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, 78 FR at 31997.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, the Commission has expressed concern that the
affiliation of an exchange with one of its members raises potential
conflicts of interest, and the potential for unfair competitive
advantage.\19\ Although the Commission continues to be concerned about
potential unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an
exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interest when
the exchange is affiliated with one of its members, for the reasons
discussed below, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the
Act to permit DE

Route, in its capacity as a facility of EDGX, to provide inbound
routing to the Exchange on a permanent basis instead of a pilot basis,
subject to the other conditions described above.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54170 (July
18, 2006), 71 FR 42149 (July 25, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-006) (order
approving Nasdaq's proposal to adopt Nasdaq Rule 2140, restricting
affiliations between Nasdaq and its members); 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77) (order
approving the combination of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and
Archipelago Holdings, Inc.); 58673 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707
(October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62) (order approving the combination
of NYSE Euronext and the American Stock Exchange LLC); 59135
(December 22, 2008), 73 FR 79954 (December 30, 2008) (SR-ISE-2009-
85) (order approving the purchase by ISE Holdings of an ownership
interest in DirectEdge Holdings LLC); and 59281 (January 22, 2009),
74 FR 5014 (January 28, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-120) (order approving a
joint venture between NYSE and BIDS Holdings L.P.); 58375 (August
18, 2008), 73 FR 49498 (August 21, 2008) (File No. 10-182) (order
granting the exchange registration of BATS Exchange, Inc.); 61698
(March 12, 2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (File Nos. 10-194 and
10-196) (order granting the exchange registration of EDGX Exchange,
Inc. and EDGA Exchange, Inc.); and 62716 (August 13, 2010), 75 FR
51295 (August 19, 2010) (File No. 10-198) (order granting the
exchange registration of BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.).
    \20\ The Commission notes that these limitations and conditions
are consistent with those previously approved by the Commission for
other exchanges. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
64090 (March 17, 2011), 76 FR 16462 (March 23, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-
007); 66808 (April 13, 2012), 77 FR 23294 (April 18, 2012) (SR-BATS-
2012-013); 66807 (April 13, 2012), 77 FR 23300 (April 18, 2012) (SR-
BYX-2012-006); 67256 (June 26, 2012) 77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-
BX-2012-030); 69233 (March 25, 2013), 78 FR 19352 (March 29, 2013)
(SR-NASDAQ-2013-028); 69232 (March 25, 2013), 78 FR 19342 (March 29,
2013) (SR-BX-2013-013); and 69229 (March 25, 2013), 78 FR 19337
(March 29, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed ongoing conditions applicable to DE
Route's inbound routing activities in its capacity as a facility of
EDGX, which are enumerated above. The Commission believes that these
conditions mitigate its concerns about potential conflicts of interest
and unfair competitive advantage. In particular, the Commission
believes that a non-affiliated SRO's oversight of DE Route,\21\
combined with a non-affiliated SRO's monitoring of DE Route's
compliance with the Exchange's rules and quarterly reporting to the
Exchange, will help to protect the independence of the Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities with respect to DE Route. The Commission
also believes that the Exchange's Rule 2.12(a)(3) is designed to ensure
that DE Route cannot use any information advantage it may have because
of its affiliation with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This oversight will be accomplished through a 17d-2
Agreement. See Approval Order, 75 FR at 13165; and Notice, 78 FR at
31996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\22\ that the proposed rule change (SR-EDGA-2013-13) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15915 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30234-30235]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11941]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA--2012-0068; Notice 5]
RIN 2127-AK72

Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect Reporting, and Motor
Vehicle and Equipment Recall Reporting; Training Sessions

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

ACTION: Meeting Notice--Training Sessions for Online Recalls Portal.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is requiring manufacturers to submit recall reports and
associated documents online through a web-based, Internet portal
beginning August 2014. Through this portal, manufacturers will not only
file new reports, but will update and amend those reports, file
quarterly reports on the progress of their recall campaigns, submit
copies of representative communications they issue to owners and
dealers, and conduct a host of other routine filings and communications
with the agency attendant to a safety recall campaigns. NHTSA will
offer twenty (20) online training sessions to instruct manufacturer
staff and representatives on how to obtain accounts and use the new
portal between July 28, 2014, and August 8, 2014

DATES: The training sessions will be offered between July 28, 2014, and
August 8, 2014. Participants must register by July 25, 2014. Specific
training dates and times can be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below.

ADDRESSES: All training sessions will be instructor-led and online. The
web address and passcode will be provided to registered participants
before their selected session. Attendees must register by close of
business July 25, 2014. To register please send an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with the names of your participants, company
name, company location, desired training date, and session choice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Ansley, Safety Recall Specialist,
NHTSA, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 20, 2013, NHTSA published a final
rule requiring manufacturers to submit required recall information
through a web-based, Internet portal accessed through our Web site
www.safercar.gov. See 78 FR 51382, 51403. Through this portal,
manufacturers will not only file new part 573 reports, but will update
and amend those reports, file quarterly reports on the progress of
their recall campaigns, submit copies of representative communications
they issue to owners and dealers, and conduct a host of other routine
filings and communications with the agency attendant to a safety recall
campaigns. Safety recall document submissions will only be accepted
through the new Recalls Portal beginning August 20, 2014. After this
date, recall document submissions will not be accepted by U.S. Mail,
email, or facsimile.
    Online training sessions will be offered to any manufacturer
personnel, representatives, and interested members of the public.\1\ We
recommend that manufacturer recall administrators and any persons that
submit recall reports join a training session. We will offer two (2)
types of training sessions: general sessions and specialty sessions.
General sessions will be open to anyone and cover a broad range of
scenarios and possible use-cases. Specialty sessions will also be open
to anyone, but will be catered to certain types of manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA can likely accommodate in-person training at the U.S.
Department of Transportation Headquarters in Washington, DC, to
those who require it. Interested participants should indicate their
need for in-person training when they reserve a training session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All training will be instructor-led WebEx sessions. Each training
session will be limited to fifty (50) registered participants.

                    Training Session Dates and Times:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Morning session      Afternoon session
    Training session date       (9:00 a.m.--11:30     (1:30 p.m.--4:00
                                  a.m. Eastern)         p.m. Eastern)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, July 28.............  General Session.....  Specialty Session
                                                     (Passenger Vehicle
                                                     MFRs).
Tuesday, July 29............  General Session.....  Specialty Session
                                                     (Child Restraint
                                                     MFRs).
Wednesday, July 30..........  General Session.....  Specialty Session
                                                     (Equipment MFRs).
Thursday, July 31...........  General Session.....  Specialty Session
                                                     (Passenger Vehicle
                                                     MFRs).
Friday, August 1............  Specialty Session     General Session.
                               (Passenger Vehicle
                               MFRs).
Monday, August 4............  Specialty Session     General Session.
                               (Heavy Duty Vehicle
                               MFRs).
Tuesday, August 5...........  Specialty Session     General Session.
                               (Tire MFRs).
Wednesday, August 6.........  Specialty Session     General Session.
                               (Equipment MFRs).
Thursday, August 7..........  General Session.....  Specialty Session
                                                     (Heavy Duty Vehicle
                                                     MFRs).
Friday, August 8............  General Session.....  Specialty Session
                                                     (Child Restraint
                                                     MFRs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How To Register

    To register, please send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
include the first and last name of the participant(s), company name,
company location, desired training date, and choose the morning or the
afternoon session. Also, please include an alternative date/session in
the event your first choice is full. Registration emails must be
received by July 25, 2014, in order to attend an online training
session.
    Training session access instructions will be sent to registered
participants on or about July 25, 2014.

    For those unable to attend a training session, a recorded version
of the Online Recalls Portal Training Presentation, along with other
training materials, will be available as a reference. We will place
this recording in a conspicuous location at http://www.safercar.gov.
The recording will be available in August 2014.

 Jennifer Timian,
Chief, Recall Management Division, NHTSA.
[FR Doc. 2014-11941 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49526-49527]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19845]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0576]

Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Working Group Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: A working group of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory
Committee will meet to review and work on Task Statement 87, concerning
review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of
the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping and changes to national
endorsements rulemaking. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working group
will meet on September 9, 2014, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Written
comments for distribution to committee members and for inclusion on the
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee Web site must be submitted
on or before August 27, 2014. Please note that this working group is
expected to continue its discussions on September 10, 2014, as part of
the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee meeting announced in a
separate notice in the Federal Register under Docket No. USCG-2014-
0576, but may adjourn early if all business is finished.

ADDRESSES: The working group will meet in the Luebbe conference room of
the Calhoon Marine Engineer Beneficial Association (MEBA) Engineering
School, 27050 Saint Michaels Rd., Easton, MD 21601. For further
information on the location of the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School,
please contact Ms. Janet Sadler at<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 370 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance, please contact Mr. Davis
Breyer as indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph
below. To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public
comment on the issue to be considered by the working group as listed in
the ``Agenda'' section below. Written comments must be identified by
Docket No. USCG-2014-0576 and submitted by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to
avoid delays in processing).
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the
docket number in the ``Search'' field and follow the instructions on
the Web site.
    A public oral comment period will be held during the meeting and
speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please
note that the public oral comment period may end before the prescribed
ending time following the last call for comments. Contact Mr. Davis
Breyer as indicated below to register as a speaker. This notice may be
viewed in our online docket, USCG-2014-0576, at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix, Public Law 92-463,
86 Stat 770 as amended.
    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established
under the Secretary's authority in section 871 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451, and chartered
under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The
Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast
Guard and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards on
matters relating to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including
but not limited to training, qualifications, certification,
documentation, and fitness standards. The Committee will advise,
consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent
judgment to the Secretary.
    A copy of all meeting documentation is available at https://homeport.uscg.mil by using these key strokes: Missions; Port and
Waterways Safety; Advisory Committees; MERPAC; and then use the
announcements key. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Davis Breyer as
noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Agenda

    The agenda for the September 9, 2014, working group meeting is as
follows:
    (1) The working group will review, discuss and develop
recommendations regarding Task Statement 87, Review of Policy Documents
Providing Guidance on the Implementation of the December 24, 2013
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping and Changes to National Endorsements Rulemaking;
    (2) Public comment period;
    (3) The working group will finalize proposed recommendations for
the full committee to consider with regards to Task Statement 87,
concerning Policy Documents Providing Guidance on the Implementation of
the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping and Changes to National
Endorsements Rulemaking;
    (4) Adjournment of meeting.
    A copy of all meeting documentation is available at http://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Davis
Breyer as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Dated: August 8, 2014.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-19845 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 6, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2003-16315 & 16314

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant(s):  Air-India Limited & Asiana Airlines, Inc.			Date(s)
Filed:  October 10, 2003

Relief requested:

Air-India Limited (OST-2003-16315)--Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to
engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and
mail between points in India, on the one hand, and San Francisco, Los
Angeles, and Seattle, via Seoul, Korea (without Seoul-U.S. traffic
rights), one the other hand, pursuant to a code-share agreement with
Asiana Airlines, Inc. (Asiana).  Air-India asks that we approve its
request for at least one year.

Asiana (OST-2003-16314)--Statement of authorization under 14 CFR Part
212 to display Air-India’s designator code (“AI”) on flights
operated by Asiana Airlines between Seoul, Korea, on the one hand, and
Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle, on the other hand.  Asiana asks
that we approve its request for an indefinite period.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  Marshall S. Sinick--(202) 626-6600
(Air-India)

			     Gregory S. Walden--(202) 457-6135 (Asiana)

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  On October 27, 2003, United filed a consolidated
answer stating that in August 2003, it filed a request with the Indian
authorities seeking similar authority to code share on Asiana’s
services between the United States and India, via Seoul.  United states
that it has been advised that India has approved its code share request
through December 31, 2003.  United states that under the circumstances,
it would not oppose our granting the Air-India/Asiana requests, for a
similar term, through December 31.  United further states that in the
meantime it will seek an extension of its Indian authority beyond
December 31, and keep the Department advised of the results of its
efforts.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved In Part/Deferred In Part						Action date:  November
6, 2003

Effective dates of the exemption authority granted Air-India--November
6, 2003-December 31, 2003

Effective dates of the statement of authorization granted
Asiana--November 6, 2003-December 31, 2003

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  1995 Memorandum
of Consultations between the United States and India (1995 MOC) and
U.S.-Korea Air Transport Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X  Air-India’s Foreign Air Carrier permit (Order 95-4-36), the 1995
MOC, and standard exemption conditions (attached)

X  Asiana Foreign Air Carrier permit (Order 2000-11-10) and standard
exemption conditions (attached)

The code-share operations authorized here are subject to the following
conditions:

(a)  The statement of authorization will remain in effect only as long
as (i) Asiana and Air-India continue to hold the necessary underlying
authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and (ii) the
code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations remains in
effect.

(b)  Asiana and/or Air-India must promptly notify the Department if the
code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations is no
longer effective or the carriers decide to cease operating any or all of
the approved code-share services.  Such notices should be filed in
Dockets OST-2003-16314 and 16315.

(c)  The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR Part 257 and with any amendments to the
Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may
be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the
carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon the
requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in the
name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected

(d)  The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither carrier shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

(e)  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) immediate action was required and was
consistent with Department policy; (3) grant of the authority was
consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority
would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not
granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

											Attachment

Foreign Carrier Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

  We defer action on Air-India’s request for an exemption and
Asiana’s request for a statement of authorization beyond December 31,
2003, pending the outcome of United’s efforts to extend its Indian
authority to codeshare with Asiana between the United States and India,
via Seoul, beyond December 31.

  We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.


	           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                  WASHINGTON, D.C.

_______________________________

2002/2003 Hong Kong Fifth-Freedom All-Cargo Frequency Proceeding

Docket OST-2002-14049

________________________________

								Served:  January 16, 2003

NOTICE STAYING PROCEDURAL DATES

By Order 2002-12-11, the Department instituted the 2002/2003 Hong Kong
Fifth-Freedom All-Cargo Frequency Proceeding, Docket OST-2002-14049, and
established a procedural schedule for the proceeding.  In response to a
request from a number of the applicants for additional time, the
Department extended the original procedural schedule by a Notice, served
on December 23, 2002.  Under the revised procedural schedule Direct
Exhibits are due January 28, 2003; Rebuttal Exhibits, February 14, 2003;
and Briefs, February 28, 2003.

Various applicants in the proceeding have filed petitions and motions
whose resolution would affect the parties’ evidentiary submissions in
this proceeding.  We anticipate that the matters raised by these
petitions and motions will be resolved soon.  However, in the
circumstances presented, we have concluded that pending such resolution,
parties should not be burdened with the need to complete and submit
their evidentiary materials.  Therefore, we are staying the remaining
procedural schedule for this proceeding until further notice.

We will serve this Notice on all parties to this proceeding by email or
facsimile.

By:

						SUSAN MCDERMOTT

				Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation

   and International Affairs

(SEAL)

Dated:  January 16, 2003

An electronic version of this notice is available on the World Wide Web
at

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26846-26848]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0399]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
multiple fireworks events located at Penns Landing in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for the waters of the Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA.
Enforcement of this safety zone is necessary and intended to enhance
safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during,
and immediately after these fireworks events. During the enforcement
periods, no vessel may enter in or transit this regulated area without
approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from June 12, 2017, until June 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0399 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST2 Amanda Boone, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for the safety zone
were not known until May 3, 2017, preventing the Coast Guard from
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register with
opportunity for public comment. Delaying this action to allow an
opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the rule's
objective of enhancing safety of life on the navigable waters and
protection of persons and vessels near the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the

effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection near the event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay has determined that this
temporary safety zone is necessary to provide safety during the
fireworks events, and to ensure protection of the public.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    On June 12, 2017, and June 13, 2017 fireworks display events will
take place at Penn's Landing, in Philadelphia, PA. The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone in a portion of the Delaware
River, Philadelphia, PA to ensure the safety of persons, vessels and
the public during the event. The safety zone includes all waters of
Delaware River, adjacent to Penns Landing, Philadelphia, PA, bounded
from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running
east to west from points along the shoreline commencing at latitude
39[deg]56'31.2'' N., longitude 075[deg]08'28.1'' W.; thence westward to
latitude 39[deg]56'29''.1 N., longitude 075[deg]07'56.5'' W., and
bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge where it crosses
the Delaware River.
    Access to this safety zone will be restricted during the specified
date and time period. Only vessels or persons specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or designated representative
may enter or remain in the regulated area. These safety zones will be
enforced on June 12, 2017 and June 13, 2017 from 8:45 p.m. to 10:30
p.m., each day.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to
reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for
every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be
prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    This rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is
exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's
Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the
Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be
unable to transit the safety zone for the duration of the fireworks
event however; this safety zone will impact a small designated area of
the Delaware River, in Philadelphia, PA, for less than 2 hours during
the fireworks event. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety
zone; under the regulation vessel operators may request permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and
regulatory mandates. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2,
figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to minor
regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. A Record
of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0399 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0399  Safety Zone; Delaware River; Philadelphia, PA.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard petty
officer, warrant or commissioned officer operating on board a Coast
Guard vessel and or on board another Federal, State, or local law
enforcement vessel assisting the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay in
the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (b) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of
Delaware River, adjacent to Penns Landing, Philadelphia, PA, bounded
from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running
east to west from points along the shoreline commencing at latitude
39[deg]56'31.2'' N., longitude 075[deg]08'28.1'' W.; thence westward to
latitude 39[deg]56'29''.1 N., longitude 075[deg]07'56.5'' W., and
bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge where it crosses
the Delaware River.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general safety zone regulations found in
Sec.  165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary
section.
    (2) Under the general safety zone regulations in Sec.  165.23,
persons may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (b) of
this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (3) To request permission to enter the safety zone, contact the
COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16. All persons and
vessels in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on June 12,
2017, and June 13, 2017 from 8:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., each day.

    Dated: June 6, 2017.
Benjamin A. Cooper,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2017-12093 Filed 6-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Holly Tuminello < htuminello@ pmaa. org> 10/ 23/ 2003 03: 23 PM To: Jeff Herzog/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: RE: Request for your input on the potential for contamination of jet fuel with the proposed heating oil marker Thanks Jeff. I will forward this to some people and try to get a response back to you ASAP.

 Original Message From: Herzog. Jeff@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Herzog. Jeff@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2: 35 PM To: htuminello@ pmaa. org Cc: ltague@ pmaa. org Subject: Request for your input on the potential for contamination of jet fuel with the proposed heating oil marker Importance: High Holly, This note is in follow up to our earlier phone conversation regarding the safeguards taken at smaller fuel distributor facilities ( such as those represented by PMAA) which handle both jet fuel and heating oil to prevent jet fuel contamination by heating oil, and red dye.

As you are aware, the Coordinating Research Council ( CRC) fuel marker task force was formed to address concerns regarding the potential contamination of jet fuel with the marker that we proposed be added to heating oil under the nonroad diesel fuel proposed rule. Under our proposal, the fuel marker would be needed in heating oil to ensure that heating oil would not be diverted into the nonroad, locomotive, and marine ( NRLM) diesel pool because we could not rely on the measurement of sulfur content to differentiate NRLM diesel from heating oil. This is because in the early years of the program we proposed to allow small quantities of high sulfur fuel destined for the NRLM market to continue to be manufactured by small refiners and under the proposed refiner credit provisions. We proposed to allow this high sulfur NRLM fuel to be blended downstream with other NRLM fuel that was manufactured to the proposed 500 ppm sulfur standard.

We proposed that the fuel marker be added to heating oil at the refinery. The majority of concerns voiced about potential marker contamination of jet fuel pertain to shipments of marked heating oil in pipelines that also carry marked heating oil. If, as we hope, we are able to finalize a designate and track system of ensuring refiner compliance with the proposed desulfurization requirements ( in place of the proposed baseline approach), we may be able to move the point of marker addition to the terminal level ( when red dye is injected per IRS requirements). Moving the point of marker addition to the terminal might alleviate the majority of jet fuel contamination concerns.

The CRC task force has received input from a number of larger terminals which indicates that their fueling hardware and practices would essentially preclude any potential for contaminating jet fuel with heating oil containing the proposed marker ( or with the marker itself). However, there remains some concern within the CRC group that this may not be the case for smaller terminals and other entities that would distribute both jet fuel and marked heating oil.

I would appreciate any input that you may be able to provide regarding situations at your member facilities (& operations) where there may be a risk of contaminating jet fuel with the fuel marker that we envision would be added to heating oil ( at the time the IRS required red dye addition takes place at the terminal), and what measures would be necessary to mitigate such risks. I am particularly interested in cases where the same equipment would be used for handling jet fuel and marked heating oil, and the measures that are already in place to prevent red dye ( and heating oil) contamination of jet fuel. I believe that the presence of a fuel marker in addition to the red dye downstream of the terminal would not make the task of limiting contamination of jet fuel more difficult than it is today, and request your input on this assessment Thanks for consideration,

Jeffrey A. Herzog, Mechanical Engineer United States Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory Assessment and Standards Division 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105 Phone: ( 734) 214 4227 Fax: ( 734) 214 4816 E Mail: herzog. jeff@ epa. gov


MEMORANDUM Subject: Summary of telephone calls with Jim Britt, of Murphy Oil Corporation From: Tia Sutton, Office of Transportation and Air Quality To: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), Air Docket A 2001 28; E DOCKET OAR 2003 0012 Date: April 26, 2004 The telephone conversations was an inquiry from Murphy regarding the inclusion of a provision for refiners that would not be considered small refiners for the Nonroad Tier 4 rule, but were considered such for either the Highway Diesel and/ or Gasoline Tier 2 rules. The conversations took place on Thursday, April 22, 2004 at 3: 30 p. m. and Friday, April 23, 2004 at 11: 00 a. m.

Participants:  Jim Britt, Murphy Oil Corporation  Tia Sutton, US EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality


species stage year impinged. est entrained. est notes dummy dummy  99  99.00  99.00 dummy american. shad larvae 1978 0 170,000 # 25874; p. 3 38 text. chinook. salmon age01 1978 808 0 Doc. # 25875, table 3 8, pg chinook. salmon larvae 1978 0 23,598 # 25875; Table B 1 cyprinidae egg 1978 0 30,000 # 25874, p. 3 20 delta. smelt age01 1978 14,082 0 # 25875; Table B 3 delta. smelt larvae 1978 0 455,413 # 25875; Table B 1 gobiidae larvae 1978 0 4,070,000 # 25874; p. 3 20 longfin. smelt age01 1978 137,261 0 # 25875; Table B 3 longfin. smelt larvae 1978 0 190,229 # 25875; Table B 1 northern. anchovy egg 1978 0 120,000 # 25874, p. 3 20 northern. anchovy larvae. 5mm 1978 0 1,327,921 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 6mm 1978 0 834,464 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 7mm 1978 0 603,783 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 8mm 1978 0 452,336 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 9mm 1978 0 257,761 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 10mm 1978 0 493,457 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 11mm 1978 0 144,426 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 12mm 1978 0 160,474 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 13mm 1978 0 15,044 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 14mm 1978 0 62,184 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 15mm 1978 0 85,252 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 16mm 1978 0 342,010 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 17mm 1978 0 62,184 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 18mm 1978 0 46,136 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 19mm 1978 0 29,086 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 20mm 1978 0 32,095 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 25mm 1978 0 120,355 # 25874; p. 3 29 northern. anchovy larvae. 37mm 1978 0 11,033 # 25874; p. 3 29 osmeridae age01 1978 25 0 # 25875; Table B 3 osmeridae egg 1978 0 600,000 # 25874, p. 3 20 osmeridae larvae 1978 0 64,784,071 # 25875; Table B 1 unidentified egg 1978 0 140,000 # 25874, p. 3 20 unidentified larvae 1978 0 66,671,113 # 25874; p. 3 20 unidentified age01 1978 12,278 0 # 25874, p. 4 11 pacific. herring larvae. 6mm 1978 0 1,840,000 # 25874; p. 3 29; larvae 5 an pacific. herring larvae. 7mm 1978 0 1,590,000 # 25874; p. 3 29 pacific. herring larvae. 8mm 1978 0 4,800,000 # 25874; p. 3 29 pacific. herring larvae. 9mm 1978 0 7,640,000 # 25874; p. 3 29 pacific. herring larvae. 10mm 1978 0 5,620,000 # 25874; p. 3 29 pacific. herring larvae. 11mm 1978 0 510,000 # 25874; p. 3 29 pacific. herring larvae. 12mm 1978 0 110,000 # 25874; p. 3 29 prickly. sculpin larvae 1978 0 29,610,000 # 25874; p. 3 20 sacramento. splittail age01 1978 8,732 0 # 25875; Table B 3 sacramento. splittail larvae 1978 0 155,289 # 25875; Table B 1 starry. flounder age01 1978 11,856 0 # 25874, p. 4 11 steelhead age01 1978 0 0 # 25875; Table B 3 steelhead larvae 1978 0 0 # 25875; Table B 1 striped. bass egg 1978 0 1,080,000 # 25874, p. 3 20 striped. bass L5. to. 6mm 1978 0 122,772,033 # 25874; p. 3 29 striped. bass L7. to. 10mm 1978 0 50,989,593 # 25874; p. 3 29 striped. bass L11. to. 14mm 1978 0 62,157,979 # 25874; p. 3 29 striped. bass L15. to. 18mm 1978 0 31,941,181 # 25874; p. 3 29 striped. bass L19mm 1978 0 2,917,415 # 25874; p. 3 29 striped. bass L20. to. 24mm 1978 0 12,511,800 # 25874; p. 3 29 striped. bass L25. to. 29mm 1978 0 0 # 25874, p. 3 29 striped. bass L30. to. 34mm 1978 0 0 # 25874, p. 3 29 striped. bass L35. to. 39mm 1978 0 0 # 25874, p. 3 29 striped. bass L40. to. 44mm 1978 0 0 # 25874, p. 3 29 striped. bass L45. to. 49mm 1978 0 0 # 25874, p. 3 29 striped. bass L51. to. 75mm 1978 0 0 # 25874, p. 3 29 striped. bass L76. to. 100mm 1978 0 0 # 25874, p. 3 29 striped. bass age01 1978 111,299 0 # 25874, p. 4 11 threadfin. shad larvae 1978 0 670,000 # 25874; p. 3 20 threadfin. shad age01 1978 88,865 0 # 25874, p. 4 11 yellowfin. goby age01 1978 31,519 0 # 25874, p. 4 11 chinook. salmon larvae 1986 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 chinook. salmon age01 1987 106 0 # 25875; Table B 7 delta. smelt larvae 1986 0 51698 # 25875; Table B 2 delta. smelt age01 1987 283 0 # 25875; Table B 7 longfin. smelt larvae 1986 0 232641 # 25875; Table B 2 longfin. smelt age01 1987 12677 0 # 25875; Table B 7 osmeridae larvae 1986 0 1628489 # 25875; Table B 2 sacramento. splittail larvae 1986 0 336037 # 25875; Table B 2 sacramento. splittail age01 1987 212 0 # 25875; Table B 7 steelhead larvae 1986 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 steelhead age01 1987 0 0 # 25875; Table B 7 yellowfin. goby larvae 1978 0 6,070,000 # 25874; p. 3 20 junk. species larvae 1978 0 0 added for modelling puspos junk. species age01 1978 0 0 added for modelling puspos chinook. salmon larvae 1987 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 delta. smelt larvae 1987 0 51698 # 25875; Table B 2 longfin. smelt larvae 1987 0 232641 # 25875; Table B 2 osmeridae larvae 1987 0 1628489 # 25875; Table B 2 sacramento. splittail larvae 1987 0 336037 # 25875; Table B 2 steelhead larvae 1987 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 chinook. salmon larvae 1988 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 delta. smelt larvae 1988 0 51698 # 25875; Table B 2 longfin. smelt larvae 1988 0 232641 # 25875; Table B 2 osmeridae larvae 1988 0 1628489 # 25875; Table B 2 sacramento. splittail larvae 1988 0 336037 # 25875; Table B 2 steelhead larvae 1988 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 chinook. salmon larvae 1989 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 delta. smelt larvae 1989 0 51698 # 25875; Table B 2 longfin. smelt larvae 1989 0 232641 # 25875; Table B 2 osmeridae larvae 1989 0 1628489 # 25875; Table B 2 sacramento. splittail larvae 1989 0 336037 # 25875; Table B 2 steelhead larvae 1989 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 chinook. salmon larvae 1990 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 delta. smelt larvae 1990 0 51698 # 25875; Table B 2 longfin. smelt larvae 1990 0 232641 # 25875; Table B 2 osmeridae larvae 1990 0 1628489 # 25875; Table B 2 sacramento. splittail larvae 1990 0 336037 # 25875; Table B 2 steelhead larvae 1990 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 chinook. salmon larvae 1991 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 delta. smelt larvae 1991 0 51698 # 25875; Table B 2 longfin. smelt larvae 1991 0 232641 # 25875; Table B 2 osmeridae larvae 1991 0 1628489 # 25875; Table B 2 sacramento. splittail larvae 1991 0 336037 # 25875; Table B 2 steelhead larvae 1991 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 chinook. salmon larvae 1992 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 delta. smelt larvae 1992 0 51698 # 25875; Table B 2 longfin. smelt larvae 1992 0 232641 # 25875; Table B 2 osmeridae larvae 1992 0 1628489 # 25875; Table B 2 sacramento. splittail larvae 1992 0 336037 # 25875; Table B 2 steelhead larvae 1992 0 0 # 25875; Table B 2 chinook. salmon age01 1988 106 0 # 25875; Table B 7 delta. smelt age01 1988 283 0 # 25875; Table B 7 longfin. smelt age01 1988 12677 0 # 25875; Table B 7 sacramento. splittail age01 1988 212 0 # 25875; Table B 7 steelhead age01 1988 0 0 # 25875; Table B 7 chinook. salmon age01 1989 106 0 # 25875; Table B 7 delta. smelt age01 1989 283 0 # 25875; Table B 7 longfin. smelt age01 1989 12677 0 # 25875; Table B 7 sacramento. splittail age01 1989 212 0 # 25875; Table B 7 steelhead age01 1989 0 0 # 25875; Table B 7 chinook. salmon age01 1990 106 0 # 25875; Table B 7 delta. smelt age01 1990 283 0 # 25875; Table B 7 longfin. smelt age01 1990 12677 0 # 25875; Table B 7 sacramento. splittail age01 1990 212 0 # 25875; Table B 7 steelhead age01 1990 0 0 # 25875; Table B 7 comments comments2 dummy . text describes that other taxa includes 170000 american shad ( larvae assumed). Assumed age01. Combined winter, spring, and fall runs Annual estimate of total lifestages, based on sampling. Combined winter, spring, and fall runs (# 25874 reports approximately 17000 chinook sal Assumed age01 Annual estimate of total lifestages, based on sampling. delta smelt ranged from 15 to 34 mm Majority are larvae based on pg. 3 29; mlarvae & Juveniles Assumed age01 Annual estimate of total lifestages, based on sampling. longfin smelt ranged from 24 to 68 mm . . Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Added 15,000 unmeasured larvae otherwise unaccounted for, distributing across larval size classes. Assumed age01 Annual estimate of total lifestages, basUsed this estimate rather than that in # 25874 May include some juveniles this value repre 66,671,113 Assumed age01 this value repre 12,278 and 6 Majority are larvae based on pg. 3 29; may include some juv. s Assumed age01 . Annual estimate of total lifestages, bas. Assumed age01 Assumed age01 . Annual estimate of total lifestages, bas. . . Based on all units operating. Sum of 5mm and 6mm larvae. Based on all units operating. Sum of 7,8,9, & 10 mm larvae. Based on all units operating. Sum of 11, 12, 13, & 14 mm larvae. Based on all units operating. Sum of 15, 16, 17, & 18 mm larvae. Based on all units operating. Based on all units operating. Based on all units operating. Based on all units operating. Based on all units operating. Based on all units operating. Based on all units operating. Based on all units operating. Based on all units operating. Assumed age01 Majority are larvae based on pg. 3 29; may include some juv. s Assumed age01 Assumed age01 Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. Combined winter, spring, and fall runs Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. Majority are larvae based on pg. 3 29; may include some juv. s oses oses Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data Assumed larvae, estimates from 1986 1992 data From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. Combined winter, spring, and fall runs From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. Combined winter, spring, and fall runs From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. Combined winter, spring, and fall runs From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. From 1987 1990 data. Assumed age01. salmon) Impingement and entrainment losses at the Pittsburg Facility Workbook compiled for use in fish impingement/ entainment loss model. A. Gret QC ed by Amy Beaulieu, 10/ 31/ 01 Worksheet Description losses01 Reported impingement & entrainment losses


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

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

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

I have been an electronic cigarette user since July 2009.  My consumption of traditional cigarettes dropped dramatically immediately.  I completely stopped smoking traditional cigarettes in 2011.  I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

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


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22403-22405]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0324]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Columbia River, Fireworks Umatilla, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain waters of the Columbia River near Umatilla, OR. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these
navigable waters during a fireworks display on June 22, 2019. This
proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in
the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia
River or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0324 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Dixon Whitley, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Umatilla Chamber of Commerce notified the Coast Guard that it
will be conducting a fireworks display from 10 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on
June 22, 2019, to commemorate the town's history and anniversary. The
fireworks will launch from a site over the Columbia River in Umatilla,
OR. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of
fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other
debris. The Captain of the Port Columbia River has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks in this display are a
safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of the discharge
site.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a 450-yard radius of the fireworks
barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port Columbia River proposes to establish a
safety zone from 9 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. on June 22, 2019. The safety zone
would cover all navigable waters of the Columbia River within 450-yards
of the discharge site located at 45[deg]55'39'' N, 119[deg]19'46'' W,
in vicinity of Umatilla, OR. The duration of the zone is intended to
ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during,
and after the scheduled 10 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. fireworks display. No
vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
If we issue a final rule in this rulemaking, because of the closeness
of the date of the event, we would need to make it effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. If we do that, we
would explain our good cause for doing so in the final rule, as
required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the Columbia River for approximately
two hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting less
than two and a half hours that would prohibit entry within 450 yards of
the fireworks discharge site. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0324 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0324  Safety Zone; Columbia River, Fireworks Umatilla,
OR.

    (a) Safety zone. The following area is designated a safety zone:
Waters of the Columbia River, within a 450-yard radius of the fireworks
discharge site located at 45[deg]55'39'' N, 119[deg]19'46'' W in
vicinity of Umatilla, OR.
    (b) Regulations. Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Columbia River or his designated representative. Also in
accordance with Sec.  165.23, no person may bring into, or allow to
remain in this safety zone any vehicle, vessel, or object unless
authorized by the Captain

of the Port Columbia River or his designated representative.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 p.m.
to 11:15 p.m. on June 22, 2019.

    Dated: May 13, 2019.
J.C. Smith,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2019-10327 Filed 5-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P