[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8732-8734]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket Number NHTSA-2018-0019]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

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 reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Send comments on or before April 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by [Docket No. NHTSA-2018-
0019] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: 1-800-647-
5527.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets. Alternately, you may
visit in person the Docket Management Facility at the street address
listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance (NEF-230), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, West Building--4th Floor--Room W45-205, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Sachs' telephone number is (202)
366-3151. Please identify the relevant collection of information by
referring to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first 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 regulation (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;
    (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 for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: Consolidated Labeling Requirements for 49 CFR parts 565
Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Requirements, and 567
Certification.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0510.
    Affected Public: Motor vehicle manufacturers.
    Form Number: None.
    Abstract:

Part 565

    The regulations in part 565 specify the format, contents, and
physical requirements for a vehicle identification number (VIN) system
and its installation to simplify vehicle identification information
retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall
campaigns. The regulations require each vehicle manufactured in one
stage to have a VIN that is assigned by the vehicle's manufacturer.
Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage is to have a VIN
assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Each VIN must consist
of 17 characters, including a check digit, in the ninth position, whose
purpose is to verify the accuracy of any VIN transcription. The VIN
must also incorporate the world manufacturer identifier or WMI assigned
to the manufacturer by the competent authority in the country where the
manufacturer is located. The WMI occupies the first three characters of
the VIN for manufacturers that produce 1,000 or more vehicles of a
specified type within a model year, and positions 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, and
14 of VINs assigned by manufacturers that produce less than 1,000
vehicles of a specified type per model year. The remaining characters
of the VIN describe various vehicle attributes, such as make, model,
and type, which vary depending on the vehicle's type classification
(i.e. passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus,
trailer, motorcycle, low-speed vehicle), and identify the vehicle's
model year, plant code, and sequential production number. NHTSA has
contracted with SAE International of Warrendale, Pennsylvania, to
coordinate the assignment of WMIs to manufacturers in the United
States. Each manufacturer of vehicles subject to the requirements of
part 565 must submit, either directly or through an agent, the unique
identifier for each make and type of vehicle it manufactures at least
60 days before affixing the first VIN using the identifier.
Manufacturers are also required to submit to NHTSA information
necessary to decipher the characters contained in their VINs, including
amendments to that information, at least 60 days prior to offering for
sale the first vehicle identified by a VIN containing that information
or if information concerning vehicle characteristics sufficient to
specify the VIN code is unavailable to the manufacturer by that date,
then within one week after that information first becomes available.
With changes implemented in 2015, manufacturers have been able to make
these submissions using an online portal on the agency's website at
https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/. In 2014, NHTSA received VIN-deciphering
information under part 565 from approximately 650 manufacturers. In
2015, NHTSA received this information from approximately 770
manufacturers. In 2016, NHTSA received this information from
approximately 780 manufacturers. Based on these figures, the agency
would expect to receive approximately 733 part 565 submissions from
manufacturers in each of the next three years (650 + 770 + 780 = 2200;
2200 / 3 = 733). Assuming that it would take one hour to produce a VIN
deciphering submission, at an average cost of $30.00 per hour for the
administrative and professional staff preparing and reviewing the
submission, NHTSA estimates that it will cost vehicle manufacturers
$21,990 to comply with the part 565 requirements (733 submissions x $30
= $21,990).

Part 567

    The regulations in part 567 specify the content and location of,
and other requirements for, the certification label to be affixed to a
motor vehicle, as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, as amended (the Vehicle Safety Act)(49 U.S.C. 30115) and
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended (the
Cost Savings Act)(49 U.S.C. 30254 and 33109), to address certification-
related duties and liabilities, and to provide the consumer with
information to assist him or her in determining which of the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards (as found in 49 CFR part 571), bumper
standards (as found in 49 CFR part 581, and Federal theft prevention
standards (as found in 49 CFR part 541) are applicable to the vehicle.
The regulations pertain to manufacturers of motor vehicles to which one
or more standards are applicable, including persons who alter such
vehicles prior to their first retail sale, and to Registered Importers
of vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are determined eligible for
importation by NHTSA, based on the vehicles' capability of being
modified to conform to those standards. The regulations require each
manufacturer to affix to each vehicle, in a prescribed location, a
label that, among other things, identifies the vehicle's manufacturer
(defined as the person who actually assembles the vehicle), the
vehicle's date of manufacture, and the statement that the vehicle
complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards
and, where applicable, bumper and theft prevention standards in effect
on the date of manufacture. The label must also include the vehicle's
gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings (GVWR and GAWRs), vehicle
identification number, and vehicle type classification (i.e., passenger
car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, trailer, motorcycle,
low-speed vehicle). The regulations specify other labelling
requirements for incomplete vehicle, intermediate, and final-stage
manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages, such as
commercial trucks that are built by adding work performing components,

such as a cargo box or cement mixer, to a previously manufactured
chassis or chassis-cab, and to persons who alter previously certified
vehicles, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of
readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim
assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, before the
first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number
and Proposed Frequency of Responses to the Collection of Information):
The agency estimates that it will receive new submissions of VIN-
deciphering information under part 565 from approximately 733
manufacturers of motor vehicles per year. The manufacturers need only
submit the required information on a one-time basis, with the proviso
that they notify the agency of any changes in the information on file
within 30 days from the date that any change in that information
occurs. In addition, the agency estimates that approximately 7,600
manufacturers of motor vehicles of all types, including manufacturers
of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses,
trailers, motorcycles and low-speed vehicles, as well as incomplete
vehicle manufacturers, intermediate and final-stage manufacturers of
vehicles built in two or more stages, and vehicle alterers, will need
to comply with the certification labeling requirements of part 567.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden of
the Collection of Information: 733 hours for supplying required VIN-
deciphering information to NHTSA under part 565; 88,000 hours for
meeting the labeling requirements of part 567.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Costs of the Collection of
Information: Assuming that the part 565 information is submitted to the
agency's website by company officers or employees compensated at an
average rate of $30.00 per hour, the agency estimates that $21,990 will
be expended on an annual basis by all manufacturers required to submit
that information (733 hours x $30.00 = $21,990). Additionally, assuming
that it will take an average of .005 hours to affix a certification
label to each of the approximately 17,600,000 vehicles produced each
year for sale in the United States, at an average cost of $20.00 per
hour, the agency estimates that roughly $1,760,000 will be expended by
all manufacturers to comply with the labeling requirements of part 567
(17,600,000 vehicles x .005 hours = 88,000 hours; 88,000 hours x $20.00
= $1,760,000).
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-03987 Filed 2-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24300-24302]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10038]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74804; File No. SR-ISE-2015-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

April 24, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 10, 2015, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees as described in more
detail below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of
Fees as described in more detail below.
1. Market Maker Fees & Tier Discounts
    The Exchange charges a taker fee for regular orders in Select
Symbols \3\ that is $0.42 per contract for Market Maker \4\ orders,
including Market Maker Plus \5\ orders, $0.45 per contract for Non-ISE
Market Maker,\6\ Firm Proprietary \7\/Broker-Dealer,\8\ and
Professional Customer \9\ orders, and $0.30 per contract for Priority
Customer \10\ orders. The Exchange now proposes to increase this taker
fee to $0.44 per contract for Market Maker orders, including Market
Maker Plus orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols listed
on the ISE that are in the Penny Pilot Program.
    \4\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \5\ A Market Maker Plus is a Market Maker who is on the National
Best Bid or National Best Offer at least 80% of the time for series
trading between $0.03 and $3.00 (for options whose underlying
stock's previous trading day's last sale price was less than or
equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $3.00 (for options whose
underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was
greater than $100) in premium in each of the front two expiration
months. A Market Maker's single best and single worst quoting days
each month based on the front two expiration months, on a per symbol
basis, will be excluded in calculating whether a Market Maker
qualifies for this rebate, if doing so will qualify a Market Maker
for the rebate.
    \6\ A ``Non-ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as defined in
Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
    \7\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account.
    \8\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \9\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \10\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also charges Market Makers a maker/taker fee and a fee
for Crossing Orders \11\ that is $0.22 per contract for regular orders
in Non-Select Symbols \12\ as well as regular and complex orders in
Foreign Currency (``FX'') Option Symbols.\13\ In addition, Market
Makers that execute a monthly volume of 250,000 contracts or more are
entitled to a discounted rate of $0.15 per contract (together, ``Market
Maker Discount Tiers''). The Exchange now proposes to increase these
fees. In particular, applicable Market Maker orders will now be charged
a fee of $0.25 per contract, subject to a discounted rate of $0.20 per
contract for Market Makers that meet the volume threshold described
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The fee for Crossing Orders applies to Crossing Orders
other than PIM orders of 100 or fewer contracts, which are billed
separately.
    \12\ ``Non-Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
excluding Select Symbols.
    \13\ Fees in FX options do not apply to Early Adopter Market
Makers. Market Maker orders sent by an Electronic Access Member
(``EAM'') are charged separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Fees for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Non-ISE Market Maker, &
Professional Customer Orders
    The Exchange also charges a maker/taker fee for regular orders in
Non-Select Symbols as well as regular and complex orders in FX Option
Symbols that is $0.30 per contract for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer,
and Professional Customer orders, and $0.45 per contract for Non-ISE
Market Maker orders. The Exchange now proposes to increase fees for
each of these market participants to $0.50 per contract.
3. Complex Order Maker Fees
    The Exchange charges a maker fee for complex orders in Non-Select
Symbols that is $0.10 per contract for Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/
Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders, and $0.20 per contract
for Non-ISE Market Maker orders, in each case when trading against
other non-Priority Customer orders. The Exchange now proposes to
increase this maker fee to $0.20 per contract for Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders, in line
with the current fees charged for Non-ISE Market Maker orders.

    The Exchange also charges a uniform maker fee of $0.43 per contract
for non-Priority Customer orders that trade against Priority Customer
orders in Complex Quoting Symbols,\14\ i.e., symbols in which Market
Makers can enter quotes in the complex order book. In addition, Market
Makers receive a discount of $0.02 per contract in Complex Quoting
Symbols when trading against Priority Customer orders preferenced to
them in the complex order book. The Exchange now proposes to eliminate
these special fees applicable to Complex Quoting Symbols. As such, Non-
Priority Customer orders in Complex Quoting Symbols will now be charged
applicable maker fee for Select Symbols when trading against Priority
Customer orders. This fee is $0.44 per contract for Non-ISE Market
Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer orders,
and $0.43 per contract (subject to a preference discount) for Market
Maker orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Complex Quoting Symbols are AA, ABX, EFA, GLD, MSFT,
MU, NVDA, VXX, VZ, WFC, XLB and XOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Fee for Responses to Crossing Orders
    The Exchange charges all market participants a fee for responses to
Crossing Orders that is $0.45 per contract for regular and complex
orders in Select Symbols and FX Option Symbols,\15\ as well as regular
orders in Non-Select Symbols. The Exchange now proposes to increase
this response fee to $0.47 per contract. The Exchange is not proposing
any changes to the response fees for complex orders in Non-Select
Symbols, which will continue to be charged at a rate of $0.90 per
contract for Market Maker orders, and $0.95 per contract for all other
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that Early Adopter Market Makers in FX
option classes are not charged a fee for responses to Crossing
Orders. The Exchange is not proposing any changes to response fees
for Early Adopter Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\16\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Market Maker Fees & Tier Discounts
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
increase Market Maker fees (including applicable Market Maker Discount
Tiers) as the proposed fees are designed to continue to be attractive
to Market Makers that trade on ISE, and are within the range of fees
charged by other options exchanges. Furthermore, the Exchange notes
that while it is increasing Market Maker fees, Market Makers will
continue to be charged fees that are generally lower than the fees
applicable to other market participants, except for Priority Customers.
The Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to
provide lower fees to Market Maker orders as Market Makers are subject
to additional requirements and obligations (such as quoting
requirements) that other market participants are not.
2. Fees for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Non-ISE Market Maker, &
Professional Customer Orders
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
increase the fees charged to Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Non-ISE
Market Maker, and Professional Customer orders as the proposed fees are
designed to be attractive to market participants that choose to bring
order flow to the ISE, and remain well within the range of fees charged
by some of the Exchange's competitors. Furthermore, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed fees are unfairly discriminatory as the
fees would apply to equally to Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/
Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders. In connection with
this proposed change, the Exchange notes that fees charged to Market
Maker orders are also increasing (see above) but will remain lower than
the fees described here for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Non-ISE
Market Maker, and Professional Customer orders. The Exchange does not
believe that this is unfairly discriminatory for the reasons already
discussed.
3. Complex Order Maker Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to increase complex
order maker fees is reasonable and equitable as the proposed fees are
set at levels that the Exchange believes will continue be attractive to
market participants that provide liquidity in complex orders, and are
within the range of fees charged by other options exchanges. Moreover,
with the proposed change, Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer,
and Professional Customer complex orders in Non-Select Symbols will now
be charged the same maker fee as is currently applicable to Non-ISE
Market Maker complex orders. As the proposed fees will be applied
equally to all market participants that trade complex orders in these
symbols, the Exchange further believes that this proposed change is not
unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to eliminate
special fees for Complex Quoting Symbols, as the Exchange believes that
these fee discounts are no longer needed to attract liquidity in these
symbols. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is not unfairly
discriminatory to eliminate this distinction for Complex Quoting
Symbols, as members will now be charged the standard maker fee for all
complex orders in Select Symbols, including the Complex Quoting
Symbols.
4. Fee for Responses to Crossing Orders
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for responses to
Crossing Orders, which are being increased slightly, are appropriate to
attract price improvement for Crossing Orders submitted to ISE, and
therefore qualify as reasonable and equitable. In this regard, the
Exchange notes that other options exchanges charge various fees for
responses to Crossing Orders, and the fees proposed here are within the
range of fees charged by these competitor markets. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed response fees are not unfairly
discriminatory as the Exchange will continue to charge a uniform
response fee that is applicable to all market participants that respond
to Crossing Orders in affected symbols. As is the case today, responses
to Crossing Orders will be charged a higher fee than contra-side orders
submitted as part of a crossing transaction. The Exchange continues to
believe that this is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory as contra-side orders guarantee the agency order, and
are subject to market risk during the time period that the agency order
is exposed to other market participants for potential price
improvement. Finally, the Exchange notes that it will continue to
charge a higher fee for responses to complex Crossing Orders in Non-
Select symbols, which reflects the higher fees and rebates generally
applicable to complex orders in these symbols.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or

intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fees and rebates are competitive with fees and rebates offered
to orders executed on other options exchanges. The Exchange operates in
a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct their order flow to competing venues. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees
and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes
reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \19\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\20\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-ISE-2015-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2015-15. 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 changes 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 the ISE. 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 No. SR-ISE-2015-15 and should be
submitted on or before May 21, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10038 Filed 4-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33456-33457]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13717]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9682-4]

Public Water Supply Supervision Program; Program Revision for the
State of Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Tentative Approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Washington has
revised its approved State Public Water Supply Supervision Primacy
Program. Washington has adopted regulations analogous to EPA's Lead and
Copper Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications Rule. EPA has
determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the
corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve
these State program revisions. By approving these rules, EPA does not
intend to affect the rights of federally recognized Indian tribes
within ``Indian country'' as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151, nor does it
intend to limit existing rights of the State of Washington.

DATES: All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request
for a public hearing must be submitted by July 6, 2012 to the Regional
Administrator at the EPA address shown below. Frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional
Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing
is made by July 6, 2012, a public hearing will be held. If no timely
and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional
Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this
determination shall become final and effective on July 6, 2012. Any
request for a public hearing shall include the following information:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual,
organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief
statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information
that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; (3) the
signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is
made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the Washington Department of Health--Office of
Drinking Water,

243 Israel Road SE., 2nd floor, Tumwater, Washington 98501 and between
the hours of 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. and 1:00-4:00 p.m. at the EPA Region
10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Marshall, EPA Region 10,
Drinking Water Unit, by mail at the Seattle address given above, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Authority:  Section 1420 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended (1996), and 40 CFR Part 142 of the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations.

    Dated: May 29, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-13717 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23045-23046]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-97-000.
    Applicants: Blossburg Power, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Blossburg Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-98-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 1, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of GenOn Holdco 1, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-99-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 2, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of GenOn Holdco 2, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2437-012.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Second Supplement to December 28, 2018 Triennial
Market Power Update of Arizona Public Service Company.
    Filed Date: 5/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190514-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1839-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Imperial Valey Solar 3, LLC
Cost True-Up Amendment to be effective 5/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190514-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1840-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Imperial Valey Solar 3, LLC
Substation Facilities Agreement to be effective 5/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190514-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1841-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State Master Install,
O&M Agmt for Metering (Rev 1) to be effective 7/14/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190514-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1842-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Power Midwest, LP.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Supply Service
Tariff Revision to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1843-000.
    Applicants: GenOn REMA, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Rate
Schedule to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1844-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 1, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1845-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 2, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1846-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 3, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.
    Docket Numbers: ER19-1847-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 4, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1848-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 5, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5008.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1849-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 6, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1850-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 7, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5010.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1851-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 8, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5011.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1852-000.
    Applicants: Orrtanna Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1853-000.
    Applicants: Shawnee Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1854-000.
    Applicants: Titus Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5014.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1855-000.
    Applicants: Hamilton Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1856-000.
    Applicants: Blossburg Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1857-000.
    Applicants: Hunterstown Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1858-000.
    Applicants: Tolna Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1859-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2891R5 AECC, Entergy
Arkansas and MISO Attachment AO to be effective 5/13/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1860-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: COC Exhibit D CSOLAR IV
South to be effective 5/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 15, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10532 Filed 5-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60341-60348]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0234]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, Kilauea Lava Flow Ocean Entry on
Southeast Side of Island of Hawaii, HI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On April 3, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking to establish a permanent safety zone surrounding
the entry of lava from the Kilauea volcano into the Pacific Ocean on
the southeast side of the Island of Hawaii, HI. The safety zone is
needed to protect persons and vessels from the potential hazards
associated with molten lava entering the ocean. After considering
comments received from the public, the Coast Guard analyzed the
economic impact of the proposed rule and made minor modifications to
the proposed rule. This supplemental notice requests comments on the
analysis and revised proposal.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before February 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit and view comments identified by docket number
USCG-2017-0234 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://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 Lieutenant Commander John Bannon,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
Sec.  Section symbol
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
TFR Temporary final rule
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background

    Lava flow that enters the ocean is potentially hazardous to anyone
near it, particularly when lava deltas collapse. A lava delta is new
land that forms when lava accumulates above sea level, and extends from
the existing base of a sea cliff. Persons and vessels near active lava
flow ocean-entry sites face potential hazards, which include, but are
not limited to: Plumes of hot, corrosive seawater laden with
hydrochloric acid and fine volcanic particles that can irritate the
skin, eyes, and lungs; explosions of debris and eruptions of scalding
water from hot rock entering the ocean; sudden lava delta collapses;
and waves associated with these explosions and collapses.
    Lava has been entering the ocean at the Kamokuna lava delta on
Kilauea volcano's south coast since July 2016. On December 31, 2016, a
large portion of the new lava delta collapsed into the ocean, producing
waves and explosions of debris near 19[deg]19'12'' N, 155[deg]02'24'' W
at the Kamokuna entry point. Following this collapse, portions of the
adjacent sea cliff continued to collapse into the ocean, producing
localized waves and showers of debris. The lava delta continues to
undergo a series of formation and subsequent collapses as lava pours
into the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, cracks parallel to the sea cliff
in the surrounding area persist, indicating further collapses with very
little or no warning are possible. As of March 2017, a new delta began
to form at the Kamokuna ocean-entry point. As it continues to grow and
collapse, cracks parallel to the sea cliff surrounding it persist,
indicating the possibility of further collapses.
    On March 28, 2017, the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu issued a
temporary final rule (TFR) under docket USCG-2017-0172. The TFR was
published in the Federal Register (82 FR 16109) on April 3, 2017 and an
extension of the TFR was published in the Federal Register (82 FR
45461) on September 29, 2017. The TFR established a safety zone to
immediately protect persons and vessels from the potential hazards
associated molten lava entering the ocean. The safety zone encompassed
all waters extending 300 meters (984 feet) in every direction around
all ocean-entry points of lava. The Coast Guard prohibited entry of
persons or vessels into the safety zone, unless authorized by the COTP
Honolulu, or his designated representative.
    In addition to the TFR, the Coast Guard also published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on April 3, 2017, proposing to make the
temporary safety zone a final rule. Its purpose was to mitigate the
potential threats that molten lava posed to the maritime public when it
entered the ocean by implementing the safety zone as a permanent
control measure for vessels operating near the lava entry points. The
NPRM addressed these concerns, and invited the public to comment during
the comment period, which ended June 2, 2017. Subsequently, the Coast
Guard extended the TFR to allow the Coast Guard to analyze the economic
impact of the safety zone and allow for public comments on this
supplemental NPRM. The TFR will remain in effect through March 28,
2018, unless the COTP Honolulu cancels or modifies the TFR.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing this SNPRM under authority in 33
U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Honolulu has determined that there are potential
hazards associated with the molten lava at the Kamokuna lava delta,
which pose potential safety concerns for anyone within 300 meters of
the ocean-entry point. The purpose of this proposed rule is to clarify
the regulatory language for the entry requirements of the safety zone,
and emphasize the safety concerns related to boating near lava ocean-
entry points. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end
of this document. It differs from the text proposed in the NPRM,
primarily in its discussion of enforcement and how to gain permission
to enter the safety zone.
    This proposed rule would establish a permanent safety zone around
the lava flow at the Kamokuna lava delta. Additionally, this proposed
rule would allow the Coast Guard to impose and enforce restrictions on
vessels operating near the lava flow that enters the ocean. This action
is necessary to promote safe navigation, and to preserve the safety of
life and property. Vessels capable of safely operating inside the
safety zone may be authorized to enter by the COTP Honolulu, or his
designated representative. Vessels approved for transiting within the
safety zone, such as approved lava tour-boat operations, are required
to adhere to specific conditions set by the COTP Honolulu. Mariners who
seek first time authorization to enter the safety zone must submit a
written request, by email or letter. The request must explain how the
vessel will operate safely in proximity to lava. A typical request
should note the vessel's condition, the operator's familiarity with the
surrounding waters, and any specific safety practices for operating
near the lava ocean-entry points. Once initial authorization is
received, a vessel owner or operator only needs to contact COTP
Honolulu by phone or radio to request permission to enter the safety
zone.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    In response to the NPRM, the Coast Guard received 67 public
comments. On May 8, 2017, at a public meeting held in Hilo, HI, meeting
participants discussed the proposed rule as well as the dangers
associated with lava ocean-

entry points. The public comments and meeting summary are available in
the public docket for this proposed rule where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Because several comments raised similar concerns, we will
address the main comment topic, followed by our responses. Unless we
receive recommendations for change during the SNPRM comment period, we
plan to adopt the regulations proposed in the NPRM with minor
modifications as reflected in this SNPRM. The SNPRM provides an
additional comment period to shape the final regulatory action.
Concerns received in the NPRM and this SNPRM will be addressed in the
final rule.
    The Coast Guard received nine comments in support of the proposed
rule. One commenter noted that he had taken a lava boat tour and felt
that the vessel got too close to the entry point and that he
experienced adverse health symptoms from being in the lava plume.
Several commenters agreed that the safety zone should be consistent
with that of the landside restriction of 300 meters. Other commenters
supported the safety zone due to the hazards resulting from the entry
of volcanic lava into the ocean.
    The Coast Guard received 18 comments regarding the safety zone's
size and location. These comments ranged from being in favor of the
300-meter safety zone as well as opposed. Nine opposing views stated
that 300 meters is excessively restrictive. One comment from the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration stated that the Coast Guard
should ``provide definitive bounding coordinates for the safety zone,
instead of a general statement that the safety zone will encompass all
waters extending 300 meters in all directions around the entry point of
lava flow into the ocean associated with the lava flow at the Kamokuna
lava delta.''
    We believe that because of the unpredictable and varying nature of
the active lava flowing into the ocean at this area, the Coast Guard
cannot issue specific geographic coordinates of the safety zone in the
final rulemaking, but will discuss the current entry site in the final
rule. We have noted, with the concurrence of NOAA's Nautical Data
Branch, Marine Chart Division, the position 19[deg]19'08'' N,
155[deg]02'36'' W for their charting systems. That is the coordinate
provided for Kamokuna Beach in the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic
Names Information System.
    Additionally, because of the varying dangers of the lava entry and
fragile bench shelf development, the Coast Guard cannot provide a
specific distance at which a vessel can safely operate. However, the
COTP Honolulu has permitted vessels to operate within the 300-meter
safety zone under certain conditions.
    The Coast Guard received one comment from Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park supporting a safety zone ``that is flexible to account for
whatever location the lava may occur since it is not a static event in
time or space. As such, we recommend that the proposed rule apply not
just to the Kamokuna ocean-entry point, but any location in the future
where lava enters the ocean.''
    We agree, and the proposed final rule includes language stating
that all locations associated with the Kilauea lava flow entering the
Pacific Ocean on the eastern side of the Island of Hawaii, HI, are
included under the safety zone.
    Sixteen commenters recommended that the Coast Guard reduce the 300-
meter radius of the safety zone.
    We believe that based on Sector Honolulu's review of the historical
observations of delta collapses and ejecta distances from the Hawaii
Volcano Observatory (HVO) records, a radius of 300 meters remains a
safe and reasonable distance for a high-hazard zone for the general
boating public. The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory reports that
explosions from delta collapses ``have hurled hot rocks nearly a meter
(yard) in size as far as about 250 m (273 yards) inland from the
collapsed delta and scattered rock debris onshore over an area the size
of several football fields. These explosions also hurl rocks seaward,
probably to similar distances.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/hawaii_ocean_entry.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 300-meter safety zone also mirrors land and air restrictions
for lava flow viewing. Furthermore, the 300 meter restriction was
discussed at the public meeting held on this rulemaking and staff from
the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory reiterated the need for a 300 meter
restriction. Accordingly, the Coast Guard proposes to maintain the
safety zone's 300-meter radius, with the option of allowing operators
to request authorization to enter the safety zone from the COTP
Honolulu.
    The Coast Guard received 30 comments in favor of allowing the lava
tour-boat owners and operators to enter and operate in the safety zone.
    Prior to the NPRM, the Coast Guard promulgated a TFR for a 300-
meter safety zone at the Kamokuna lava delta. Pursuant to the TFR, the
COTP Honolulu granted four lava tour-boat owners and operators and one
photographer access to operate within the safety zone. We believe that
because of the potential hazards associated with the active lava flow
and cliff fragility at lava ocean-entry points, specific distances from
the lava flow a vessel can safely operate cannot be provided. Under
this proposed final rule, any vessel owner or operator may submit a
written request to the COTP Honolulu, or his designated representative,
for authorization to enter the safety zone. Such written requests must
explain how the vessel will operate safely in proximity to lava. A
typical request should note the vessel's condition, the operator's
familiarity with the surrounding waters, and any specific safety
practices for operating near the lava ocean-entry points. Once initial
authorization is received, a vessel owner or operator only needs to
contact COTP Honolulu by phone or radio to request permission to enter
the safety zone.
    The Coast Guard received three comments regarding access or
exclusive access to the lava flow by Hawaiian natives. This rule is
concerned with the safety aspect of access to the lava flow area.
Mandating exclusive access to the lava flow is outside the scope of
this rulemaking and is outside the Coast Guard's authority. This
proposed rule provides for access after requesting permission from the
COTP to enter the zone. We encourage persons or vessel owners and
operators seeking access to the safety zone to make their request by
following the guidance above.
    The Coast Guard received one comment regarding the lack of reliable
VHF radio communications near the lava flow area, thereby, preventing
lava tour-boat owners and operators from hailing the Coast Guard via
VHF radio.
    We are aware of the VHF radio limitations in this area, and are
currently researching how to improve radio coverage. The COTP Honolulu
and Coast Guard Base Honolulu are attempting to install equipment in
the vicinity to enhance communications in this area. In the meantime,
vessel owners and operators are encouraged to use alternate means to
communicate effectively near the lava flow ocean-entry points. They are
also encouraged to contact the Coast Guard in advance of their transits
to the lava ocean-entry points in order to facilitate effective
communications as well as timely processing any written request for
authorization to enter the safety zone.
    The Coast Guard received four comments regarding general unsafe
conditions at the boat ramp where tour operators launch.
    Boat ramps and associated safe boating concerns are a state
management issue. We have forwarded

this comment to the appropriate state office.
    One comment proposed the safety zone be stationary, and move with
the lava shelf, essentially creating a moving safety zone.
    Title 33 CFR 165.20 defines a safety zone as a water area to which,
for safety purposes, access is limited to authorized persons or
vessels. It further states that a safety zone may be stationary and
described by fixed limits. We believe that in this situation, the entry
point of the lava changes based on flow, and as such, the safety zone
would encompass all waters extending 300 meters (984 feet) in all
directions around the entry point of lava flow into the ocean. The
Coast Guard does not define this as a moving safety zone around a
moving object, but rather as a necessary adjustment to a dynamic
environmental occurrence, which may have multiple lava entry points.
    The Coast Guard also received a comment stating that our
certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), concerning the economic impact on
small entities, was potentially arbitrary as it lacked any factual
basis for the certification. This SNPRM includes an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in Section V. B. in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612).
    The Coast Guard received two comments regarding Executive Order
13771 (``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'')
directing a reduction of the promulgation of new regulations. As
discussed in the next section, this rule is exempt from this Executive
order.

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
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' directs agencies to control regulatory
costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it 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. See OMB's Memorandum ``Guidance
Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017).
Costs
    This SNPRM proposes to make permanent the existing TFR safety zone
for the navigable waters surrounding the entry of lava from Kilauea
volcano into the Pacific Ocean. The safety zone would remain to include
waters within 300 meters (984 feet) of where lava enters the ocean.
Entry of persons or vessels into the safety zone may only occur if
granted permission by the COTP Honolulu, or his designated
representative.
    Lava has been entering the ocean at Kamokuna lava delta on Kilauea
volcano's south coast since July of 2016 and will continue to do so in
the future. When lava enters the ocean, hazards emerge. The hazards
include, but are not limited to, plumes of corrosive seawater, which
can irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs; explosions of debris and
scalding water, which can injure passengers; and sudden collapses of
lava deltas, which can cause large waves potentially capsizing vessels.
This SNPRM seeks to establish a minimum safe operating distance to
protect individuals and vessel owners and operators from the hazards of
the Kilauea lava flow at sea.
    Prior to the original TFR, any vessel could enter within 300 meters
of the point where lava reaches the ocean. This SNPRM proposes to make
permanent the original TFR so that any vessel wishing to enter the
safety zone must request permission in writing to enter the safety zone
from the COTP Honolulu.
    Therefore, this proposed rule affects any vessel that would
normally travel within 300 meters of points where lava reaches the
ocean. Due to the hazards and relative remoteness of such an area, the
Coast Guard is not aware of any vessel operations within 300 meters of
a point where lava enters the ocean other than those by lava tour-boat
owners and operators. So far, the COTP Honolulu has granted four lava
tour-boat owners and operators as well as one photographer
authorization to enter the safety zone under certain conditions while
the TFR is still in effect. These entities are required to notify the
COTP Honolulu by phone before departing for each tour in which they
plan on entering the 300-meter safety zone.
    When the Coast Guard published the original TFR concurrently with
the NPRM on April 3, 2017, vessel owners and operators were required to
prepare and submit a written request to the COTP Honolulu to enter the
safety zone. Because this SNPRM is consistent with the requirements in
the TFR, we are presenting the costs associated with this SNPRM.
    The written request requirement was contained in the previous TFR
and each lava tour-boat owner and operator seeking authorization to
enter the safety zone has complied. Based on discussions with COTP
Honolulu personnel, we estimated it takes about 4-hours for a vessel
owner or operator to submit a written request to enter the safety zone.
This includes the time it would take lava tour-boat owners and
operators to respond to questions from the COTP concerning the written
request. Lava tour-boat owners and operators would only be required to
make a written request once rather than for each voyage. The Coast
Guard is not aware that any voyages were terminated due to a lack of
authorization to enter the safety zone during the period operators
requested to enter.
    We obtained the mean hourly wage rate for a captain of a lava tour-
boat from the May 2016 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational
Employment Statistics National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates. Based on BLS' data, the mean hourly wage rate for captains,
mates, and pilots of water vessels with the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) occupational code of 53-5021 in the
``Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water'' industry is $24.42.\2\
Because this is an unloaded hourly wage rate, we added a load factor of
1.52 derived from the May 2016 BLS ``Employer Cost for Compensation''
databases to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate of $37.12.\3\ Using this

information, we estimated the one-time initial cost for an owner or
operator to prepare a written request and respond to comments from the
Coast Guard to be about $148.47 ($37.12 per hour x 4 hours). Therefore,
we estimated the total cost of the proposed rule on industry to be
about $593.88 ($148.47 x 4 lava tour-boat owners or operators).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Captains, mates, and pilots may work in numerous industries.
We use the BLS industry-specific mean hourly wage rate for the
affected tour boat operators from the ``Scenic and Sightseeing
Transportation, Water'' industry. See http://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes535021.htm.
    \3\ A loaded wage rate is what a company pays per hour to employ
a person, not an hourly wage. The loaded wage rate includes the cost
of benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The load factor for
wages is calculated by dividing total compensation by wages and
salaries. For this analysis, we used BLS Employer cost of employee
compensation/Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations,
Private Industry Report (Series IDs, CMU2010000520000D and
CMU2020000520000D) for all workers using the multi-screen data
search. Using 2016 Q4 data for the cost of compensation per hour
worked, we divided the total compensation amount of $28.15 by the
wage and salary amount of $18.53 to obtain the load factor of about
1.52, rounded. See the following websites: https://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/find?fq=survey:[oe]s=popularity:D and https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cm. Multiplying 1.52 by $24.42, we
obtained a loaded hourly wage rate of about $37.12, rounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since all four lava tour-boat owners and operators (and one
photographer, who this proposed rule would not affect) were each
granted permission to enter the safety zone through an initial written
request, the only potential cost to these lava tour-boat owners and
operators would be the cost of the initial request. Each owner or
operator would also be required to notify the COTP Honolulu by phone
during the normal course of their duty before entering the safety zone.
These entities shall notify the Coast Guard by phone; however, we did
not estimate a cost for the call because the equipment already exists
onboard the vessel.
    The Federal government would also incur costs of this proposed
rule. Government costs to implement this proposed rule include the one-
time cost of reviewing the written requests (we did not estimate a cost
for the time to receive a call from an owner or operator to when
entering a safety zone because the COTP Honolulu conducts this review
in the normal course of the COTP duties). To process the written
request, we estimated one non-commissioned officer with a rank of E-7,
and three officers with ranks of O-4, O-5, and O-6 would take about one
hour each to review the written request. Based on the labor rates
listed in Table 1,\4\ we estimated the total cost of the proposed rule
to the Federal government to be about $378.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We obtained the hourly wage rates from Enclosure (2) of
Commandant Instruction 7310.1R (29 March 2017) using the ``In
Government Rate.''

                           Table 1--Total Government Costs of the Temporary Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Rank                                   Wage rate      Labor hours     Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7.............................................................             $65               1             $65
O-4.............................................................              92               1              92
O-5.............................................................             104               1             104
O-6.............................................................             117               1             117
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  ..............               4             378
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimated the total cost of this proposed rule to lava tour-boat
owners and operators and the government to be about $972 ($593.88 for
lava tour-boat owners or operators + $378 for the government).
Benefits
    Lava flow that enters the ocean is potentially hazardous and
presents a danger to vessels navigating within close proximity of where
the flow enters the ocean, particularly when lava deltas collapse.\5\
These hazards include, but are not limited to, plumes of hot, corrosive
seawater laden with hydrochloric acid and fine volcanic particles that
can irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs; explosions of debris and
eruptions of scalding water from hot rock entering the ocean; sudden
lava delta collapses; and waves associated with these explosions and
collapses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A lava delta is new land that forms when lava accumulates
above sea level and extends from an existing base of a sea cliff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary benefit of this SNPRM is to promote safe navigation,
and preserve the safety of life and property. If vessel operators wish
to transit through the safety zone they will be required to first
contact the COTP Honolulu for permission with an explanation of how
their safety and lifesaving equipment is adequate to meet the greater
risks present.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the Coast Guard prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) that examines the impacts of the rule on small entities
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Due to the proposed rule's anticipated impacts
on small entities, the Coast Guard is including an analysis of the
SNPRM requirements for informational purposes.
    A small entity may be: A small independent business, defined as
independently owned and operated, is organized for profit, and is not
dominant in its field per the Small Business Act (5 U.S.C. 632); a
small not-for-profit organization (any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field);
or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000
people) per the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    An IRFA addresses the following:
    (1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the rule;
    (3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the rule would apply;
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that would be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record;
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule;
and
    (6) A description of any significant alternatives to the rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.
    We address each of these six elements below:
    1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered.
    Lava has been entering the ocean at Kamokuna on Kilauea volcano's
south coast since July of 2016 and will continue to do so in the
foreseeable future. When lava enters the ocean, potential hazards
emerge such as: Plumes of corrosive seawater can irritate the skin,
eyes, and lungs; explosions of debris and scalding water can injure
passengers; collapses of lava deltas can cause large waves potentially
capsizing

vessels. Unless vessels have the proper equipment and their operators
take sufficient precautions, passengers, and operators face significant
hazards to their lives as well as property. This SNPRM is necessary to
promote navigational safety, provide for the safety of life and
property, and facilitate and accommodate the reasonable demands of
commerce related to tourism surrounding the lava ocean-entry points.
    2. A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule.
    This safety zone proposes to protect the safety of mariners, lava
tour-boat passengers, and the protection of property by establishing a
300 meter safety zone from every direction and all points where lava
enters the ocean.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under 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. The COTP
Honolulu has determined that potential hazards exist that are
associated with Kilauea's active lava flow entry into the Pacific Ocean
on the southeast side of the Island of Hawaii, HI. The Coast Guard
considers this area to be a safety concern for anyone who transits
within 300 meters (984 feet) in every direction and around all points
where the lava flow enters the ocean. The objective of this proposed
rule is to protect the public including mariners and passengers aboard
lava tour-boat owners and operators traveling in the navigable waters
inside the safety zone.
    3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply.
    This proposed rule affects any vessel that would normally travel
within 300 meters of points where lava reaches the ocean. Due to the
hazards and relative remoteness of such an area, the Coast Guard
believes only lava tour operators would regularly operate within 300
meters of a point where lava enters the ocean. Based on the Coast
Guard's understanding, there are four known lava tour-boat owners and
operators (and one photographer) who regularly come within 300 meters
of the Kilauea lava flow.
    Of the four lava tour-boat owners and operators who would transit
within the safety zone, we could not find publically available
information such as annual revenues and number of employees for three
of the four operators. We assumed these three operators qualified as
small entities. We found revenue information on the fourth lava tour-
boat owner. Using Manta, a publicly available database for businesses
in the United States, we found this lava tour-boat owner to have annual
revenues of $220,000 and a NAICS code of 561520, ``Tour Operators.''
\6\ This NAICS code has a size threshold of $20.5 million for annual
revenues, based on the Small Business Administration's table of size
standards.\7\ Based on this information, this lava tour-boat operator
also qualified as a small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Accessed July 17, 2017 from https://www.manta.com.
    \7\ https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on discussions with COTP Honolulu personnel and using the
wage rates and labor hour estimates as established above, we estimated
it would take about 4-hours for an owner or operator of a lava tour-
boat to prepare a written request to enter the safety zone. This
includes the time it would take lava tour-boat owners or operators to
respond to questions from the COTP concerning the written request. Lava
tour-boat owners and operators would be only required to make this
request once rather than for every voyage.
    Above we obtained a loaded hourly wage rate of $37.12 for captains,
mates, and pilots of water vessels. We estimated the one-time initial
cost for an owner or operator to prepare a written request and respond
to comments from the Coast Guard to be about $148.47 ($37.12 per hour x
4 hours). We estimated the total cost of the SNPRM to be about $593.88
($148.47 x 4 lava tour-boat owners or operators).
    As mentioned above, we only found revenue data on one of the four
operators. Therefore, we estimate the initial revenue impact of this
proposed rule on this lava tour-boat owner to be about $148.47, which
is 0.07% of the company's revenue. There are no annual revenue impacts
because the written request needs to be made once, after which each
lava tour-boat operator would notify the COTP Honolulu by phone to
obtain permission to enter the safety on a given day.
    4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities, which would be subject to
the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
    This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules, which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule.
    There are no relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this SNPRM.
    6. A description of any significant alternatives to the rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.
    The Coast Guard considered the alternative of not establishing a
safety zone. However, without a safety zone, vessel owners and
operators would be unprepared for the greater hazards that are present
near the Kilauea lava flow ocean-entry point. These vessel owners and
operators and passengers could suffer grave injury or in the extreme
case death, in addition to damage to or loss of property, if adequate
protection is not provided. Therefore, the Coast Guard decided a safety
zone was necessary to promote navigational safety, provide for the
safety of life and property, and to accommodate and facilitate the
reasonable demands of commerce relating to tourism surrounding the lava
entry points. No cost to industry or government would be associated
with this alternative; nevertheless, we rejected this alternative
because it would not ensure that the boating public would operate
within a safe distance of where the lava flow enters the ocean.
    Therefore, 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. We are interested in the
potential impacts from this proposed rule on small businesses and we
request public comment on these potential impacts. If you think that
this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on you,
your business, or your organization, please submit a comment to the
docket at the address under ADDRESSES in the proposed rule. In your
comment, explain why, how, and to what degree you think this rule would
have an economic impact on you.

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 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 Management Directive 023-01, 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 establishing a safety zone that would prohibit
persons and vessels from entry into the 300 meters (984 feet) safety
zone extending in all directions around the entry of lava flow into the
Pacific Ocean. 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 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.

VI. 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 http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM are available in the docket, and
all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://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
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
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: 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.  165.1414 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1414  Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, Kilauea Lava Flow Ocean
Entry on Southeast Side of Island of Hawaii, HI.

    (a) Location. The safety zone area is located within the Captain of
the Port (COTP) Honolulu Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and encompasses all
primary areas from the surface of the water to the ocean floor at the
Kilauea active lava flow entry into the Pacific Ocean on the southeast
side of the Island of Hawaii, HI. The entry point of the lava may
change based on flow. The safety zone encompasses all waters extending
300 meters (984 feet) in all directions around entry points of lava
flow into the ocean associated with the lava flow at the Kamokuna lava
delta.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been authorized by the COTP Honolulu to assist in enforcing the safety
zone described in paragraph (a).
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in Sec.  165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this
notice of proposed rulemaking.
    (1) All persons and vessels are required to comply with the general
regulations governing safety zones found this part.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP Honolulu, or his designated
representative.
    (3) Persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone identified
in paragraph (a) should submit a written request to the COTP Honolulu
before initial entry into the safety zone. The request must explain how
the vessel will operate safely in proximity to lava. A typical request
should note the vessel's condition, the operator's familiarity with the
surrounding waters, and any specific safety practices for operating
near the lava ocean-entry points. Persons authorized initial entry may,
thereafter, contact the COTP Honolulu through his designated
representatives at the Command Center via telephone:

808-842-2600 and<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or on VHF channel 16
(156.8 Mhz) to request permission to transit the safety zone.
    (4) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the COTP Honolulu, or his designated
representative, and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain
a safe course while transiting through or in the safety zone as well as
maintain a safe distance from the lava hazards.
    (5) The COTP Honolulu will provide notice of enforcement of the
safety zone described in this section by verbal radio broadcasts and
written notice to mariners. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this
section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHZ). The COTP and his or her designated representatives can be
contacted at telephone number listed in (c)(3) of this section.
    (6) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement
of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    Dated: December 13, 2017.
M.C. Long,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2017-27297 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


             Bill
             Harnett/RTP/USEP
             A/US                                                    To
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
             03/17/2007 06:11<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
             AM                                                      cc
                                      Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
                                      Joanna Swanson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
                                                                Subject
                                      Fw: Ethanol preamble and rule

Dear Amy and Art,

I am resending this informal submittal because I have a different email
address for Amy than the one Michael used.

Bill

----- Forwarded by Bill Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/17/2007 06:09 AM
-----

             Michael
             Ling/RTP/USEPA/U
             S                                                       To
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
             03/16/2007 04:42                                        cc
             PM                       Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
                                      Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joanna
                                      Swanson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Juan
                                      Santiago<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                Subject
                                      Ethanol preamble and rule

Amy:  we are sending this informally due to the expedited schedule.   It
went to OPEI today for formal transmittal, but there are a couple of
placeholders in it.   You'll see two in there and there should be
another:  On page 23 right before section V, there should be a
placeholder for langauage we are still working regarding effective dates
and State program revision requirements.

Enjoy.

(See attached file: EthanolFRN3-16-07omb.doc)

Michael Ling
Associate Director
Air Quality Policy Division
U.S. EPA - OAQPS
(919) 541-4729

 EthanolFRN3-16-07omb11.doc


[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16148-16149]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on April 29, 2010, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, The Ballrooms, 8727
Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD. The hotel phone number is 301-589-
5200.
    Contact Person: Minh Doan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express
delivery,

5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:
301-827-6776, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site
and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to
learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On April 29, 2010, the committee will discuss the efficacy
and safety of new drug application (NDA) 21-242, artesunate rectal
suppositories, submitted by the World Health Organization, for the
proposed use as a single dose for the initial treatment of patients
with acute malaria who cannot take medication by mouth and for whom
injectable treatment is not available.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
April 15, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before April 7, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 8,
2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Minh Doan at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 25, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-7113 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S