[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8053-8054]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3516]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9115-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0816]

A Framework for Categorizing the Relative Vulnerability of
Threatened and Endangered Species to Climate Change

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing an extension of the original 30-day public
comment period for the draft document titled, ``A Framework for
Categorizing the Relative Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered
Species to Climate Change'' (EPA/600/R-09/011). This extension is being
granted in response to request from interested parties. The document
was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within
EPA's Office of Research and Development. This draft document describes
an evaluative framework that may be used to categorize the relative
vulnerability of species to climate change. To illustrate the use of
this framework, it was applied to six U.S. threatened and endangered
species: the golden-cheeked warbler, the salt marsh harvest mouse, the
Mount Graham red squirrel, the Lahontan cutthroat trout, the desert
tortoise and the bald eagle.
    An external peer review of this report has been completed. The
public comment period and the external peer review are separate
processes. The public comment period provides an opportunity for all
interested parties to comment on the document. When finalizing the
draft document, EPA will consider any public comments received in
accordance with this notice.
    EPA released this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination review and comment under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination.

DATES: The original 30-day public comment period began on November 25,
2009 and closed on December 28, 2009. All comments received to date
will be considered, including those received after the close of the
original public comment period. An additional 30-day comment period
begins on February 23, 2010, and ends March 25, 2010. Comments should
be in writing and must be received by EPA by March 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``A Framework for Categorizing the Relative
Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered Species to Climate Change''
is available primarily via the Internet on the National Center for
Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and the
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of
paper copies are available from the Information Management Team, NCEA;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you are requesting
a paper copy, please provide your name, your mailing address, and the
document title, ``A Framework for Categorizing the Relative
Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered Species to Climate Change.''
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions

provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information and all other questions, contact Susan
Julius, NCEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Project/Document

    The document, ``A Framework for Categorizing the Relative
Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered Species to Climate Change''
describes an evaluative framework that may be used to categorize the
relative vulnerability of species to climate change. Four modules
compose this framework: Module 1 categorizes baseline vulnerability to
extinction or major population reduction by scoring those elements of
the species' life history, demographics, and conservation status that
influence the likelihood of its survival or extinction (excluding
climatic changes); Module 2 scores the likely vulnerability of a
species to future climate change, including the species' potential
physiological, behavioral, demographic, and ecological responses to
climate change; Module 3 combines the results of Modules 1 and 2 into a
matrix to produce an overall score of the species' vulnerability to
climate change, which maps to an adjectival category, such as
``critically vulnerable,'' ``highly vulnerable,'' ``less vulnerable,''
and ``least vulnerable;'' Module 4 is a qualitative determination of
uncertainty of overall vulnerability (high, medium, and low) based on
evaluations of uncertainty done in each of the first 3 modules.
    To illustrate the use of this framework, it was applied to six U.S.
threatened and endangered species. Based on the framework, four of
those species were categorized as ``critically vulnerable:'' the
golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), the salt marsh harvest
mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), the Mount Graham red squirrel
(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis), and the Lahontan cutthroat trout
(Oncorhyncus clarki henshawi). The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)
was characterized as ``highly vulnerable'' and the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was categorized as ``less vulnerable.''
Certainty scores in Module 4 ranged between medium and high and reflect
the amount and quality of information available.
    This framework was developed by EPA's Global Change Research
Program and is offered as one of a number of potential approaches for
prioritizing those species most vulnerable to climate change. It is not
intended to serve as a tool for determining whether a species is
endangered or threatened under the Section 4 listing process of the
Endangered Species Act.
    EPA's Global Change Research is an assessment-oriented program
committed to developing frameworks and tools to assist decision-makers
in evaluating the impacts of climate change to air quality, water
quality and ecosystems.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2009-
0816, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334 EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center's Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit
three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number
pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original
and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0816. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2010-3516 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13171-13173]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82926; File No. SR-OCC-2017-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove the Proposed Rule Concerning Enhanced and New Tools for
Recovery Scenarios

March 22, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On December 18, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2017-020 (``Proposed Rule Change''),
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed Rule Change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 26,
2017.\3\ On January 25, 2018, the Comission designated a longer period
within which to approve the Proposed Rule Change, disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change.\4\ To date,\5\ the
Commission has received one comment letter to the Proposed Rule
Change.\6\ The Commission is publishing this order pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to institute proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82351 (Dec. 19, 2017),
82 FR 61107 (Dec. 26, 2017) (SR-OCC-2017-020) (``Notice''). On
December 8, 2017, OCC also filed a related advance notice (SR-OCC-
2017-809) with the Commission pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title
VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act
of 2010 and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Act (``Advance Notice'').
12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i), respectively.
The Advance Notice was published in the Federal Register on January
23, 2018. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82513 (Jan. 17, 2018),
83 FR 3244 (Jan. 23, 2018) (SR-OCC-2017-809).
    The Financial Stability Oversight Council designated OCC a
systemically important financial market utility on July 18, 2012.
See Financial Stability Oversight Council 2012 Annual Report,
Appendix A, available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Therefore, OCC is required to
comply with the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act and
file advance notices with the Commission. See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82585 (Jan. 25, 2018),
83 FR 4526 (Jan. 31, 2018) (File No. SR-OCC-2017-020).
    \5\ The comment period closed on January 16, 2018. See Notice,
supra note 3, 28 FR at 61116.
    \6\ See letter from Jacqueline H. Mesa, Senior Vice President of
Global Policy, Futures Industry Association, dated January 16, 2018,
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (``FIA Letter''),
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2017-020/occ2017020.htm.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission
has reached any conclusions with respect to the Proposed Rule Change,
nor does it mean that the Commission will ultimately disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change. Rather, as discussed below, the Commission seeks
additional input on the Proposed Rule Change and issues presented by
the proposal.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The description of the Proposed Rule Change is substantially
excerpted from the Notice. See Notice, supra note 3, 82 FR at 61107-
61109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule Change would make certain revisions to OCC's
Rules and By-Laws \9\ to enhance OCC's existing tools to address the
risks of liquidity shortfalls and credit losses and to establish new
tools by which OCC could re-establish a matched book following a
default.\10\ Each of the proposed tools is contemplated to be deployed
by OCC in an extreme stress event that has placed OCC into a recovery
or orderly wind-down scenario.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: http://optionsclearing.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
    \10\ Notice, supra note 3, 82 FR at 61107.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC proposed to make four revisions to its Rules and By-Laws.
First, OCC proposed to revise the existing assessment powers in Section
6 of Article VIII of OCC's By-Laws, specifically to:
    (a) Establish a rolling cooling-off period that would be triggered
by the payment of a proportionate charge against the Clearing Fund
(i.e., a triggering proportionate charge), during which period the
aggregate liability of a Clearing Member to replenish the Clearing Fund
(inclusive of assessments) would be 200 percent of the Clearing
Member's required contribution as of the time immediately preceding the
triggering proportionate charge; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 61108, 61109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Clarify that a Clearing Member that chooses to terminate its
membership status during a cooling-off period will not be liable for
replenishment of the Clearing Fund immediately following the expiration
of such cooling-off period, provided that the withdrawing Clearing
Member satisfies enumerated criteria, including providing notice of
such termination by no later than the end of the cooling-off period and
by closing-out or transferring all its open positions with OCC by no
later than the last day of the cooling-off period; \13\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 61108, 61109-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Delineate between the obligation of a Clearing Member to
replenish its contributions to the Clearing Fund and its obligations to
meet additional assessments that may be levied following a
proportionate charge to the Clearing Fund.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 61109, 6110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, OCC proposed to adopt a new rule that would provide OCC
with discretionary authority to call for voluntary payments from non-
defaulting Clearing Members in a circumstance where one or more
Clearing Members has already defaulted and OCC has determined that it
may not have sufficient resources to satisfy its obligations and
liabilities resulting from such default (``Rule 1009'').\15\ Rule 1009
also would establish that OCC would prioritize compensation of Clearing
Members that made voluntary payments from any amounts recovered from
the defaulted Clearing Members.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, OCC proposed to adopt a new rule that would provide the
following authority (``Rule 1111''):

    (a) Allow OCC to call for voluntary tear-ups (``Voluntary Tear-
Up'') \17\ of non-defaulting Clearing Member and/or customer positions
at any time following the suspension or default of a Clearing Member,
with the scope of any such Voluntary Tear-Ups being determined by the
Risk Committee of OCC's Board (``Risk Committee''); \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. at 61110 (defining Voluntary Tear-Up).
    \18\ Id. at 61109, 61110-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Allow OCC's Board to vote to tear-up the Remaining Open
Positions \19\ of a defaulted Clearing Member, as well as any Related
Open Positions \20\ in a circumstance where OCC has attempted one or
more auctions of such defaulted Clearing Member's remaining open
positions and OCC has determined that it may not have sufficient
resources to satisfy its obligations and liabilities resulting from
such default, with the scope of any such tear-up (``Partial Tear-Up'')
\21\ being determined by the Risk Committee; \22\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id. at 61111 (defining Remaining Open Positions).
    \20\ See id. (defining Related Open Positions).
    \21\ See id. at 61109 (defining Partial Tear-Up).
    \22\ Id. at 61109, 61111-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Allow OCC's Board to vote to re-allocate losses, costs and fees
imposed upon holders of positions extinguished in a Partial Tear-Up
through a special charge levied against remaining non-defaulting
Clearing Members.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id. at 61109, 61112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth and finally, OCC proposed to revise the descriptions and
authorizations in Article VIII of OCC's By-Laws concerning the use of
the Clearing Fund to reflect its discretion to use remaining Clearing
Fund contributions to re-allocate losses imposed on non-defaulting
Clearing Members and customers from a Voluntary Tear-Up or a Partial
Tear-Up.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comment Received

    On January 16, 2018, the Commission received a comment letter from
the Futures Industry Association (``FIA'').\25\ In the comment letter,
FIA stated that it had identified a number of areas where it did not
support the approach that OCC proposed in the Proposed Rule Change, and
it separated its response into two sections.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See FIA Letter, supra note 4.
    \26\ FIA Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, with respect to replenishment of the Clearing Fund, the FIA
stated that OCC ``should provide an explanation as to how the cap level
of 200% [regarding assessments in a cooling-off period] was determined
and why [OCC] considers 200% appropriate, rather than a lower cap
level.'' \27\ Second, with respect to Partial Tear-Up, the FIA
generally supported its use as a position rebalancing tool.\28\ The FIA
stated, however, that its belief that ``it is [not] reasonable nor
analytically sound for tear-ups to result in incremental costs of
undefined amounts being distributed through assessments, as it
effectively enables the Board of OCC to engage in unlimited
assessments.'' \29\ Additionally, the FIA stated that ``where a cleared
trade is selected by the Board of OCC for Partial Tear-Up, the price of
the trade should be determined objectively (either by marking to market
or an objective best-estimate of market price), not on a discretionary
basis.'' \30\ The FIA also stated that ``OCC should ensure that the
design and application of Partial Tear-Ups do not dis-incentivize
bidding in default management auctions.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 2.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove File No.
SR-OCC-2017-020 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the Proposed Rule Change
should be approved or disapproved.\32\ Institution of proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the Proposed Rule Change. As noted above, institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
Proposed Rule Change and provide arguments to support the Commission's
analysis as to whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule
Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\33\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis, and input from, commenters with respect to the Proposed Rule
Change's consistency with the Act and the rules thereunder, including
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\34\ which requires, in
part, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearnance and settlement of securities
transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) of the Act,\35\ which requires a
covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to plan for the
recovery and orderly wind-down of the covered clearing agency
necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from
general business risk, or any other losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
Proposed Rule Change with respect to the issues identified above, as
well as any other concerns they may have with the Proposed Rule Change.
In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested
persons concerning whether the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under the Act, cited
above, or any other provision of the Act, rules, and regulations
thereunder.
    Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval
or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29, 89 Stat. 97 (1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of
1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess.
30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the Proposed Rule Change should be approved
or disapproved by April 17, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
May 1, 2018.
    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 protected]. Please include
File No. SR-OCC-2017-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-2017-020. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Proposed Rule Change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the Proposed
Rule Change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's website at
https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-2017-020 and should
be submitted on or before April 17, 2018. If comments are received, any
rebuttal comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06105 Filed 3-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the approach and results of multiple pollutant analyses that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has conducted to help inform a determination that EPA must make under Section 112( n)( I)( A) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( CAAA) regarding the regulation of mercury emissions from electric power plants. 1 This analysis examines hypothetical pollution control options to reduce emissions of the most significant air pollutants from electric power generation. The analyses presented here continue a series of multiple pollutant analyses that EPA has undertaken over the past three years. Multiple pollutant analyses, such as this, provide valuable information to EPA, the power industry, and the public about the interrelationship of the major pollutants of the electric power industry and the control of those pollutants.

The pollution control options that were examined include lowering power plant sulfur dioxide ( SO2) emissions beyond the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Acid Rain program to address the fine particulate problem, reducing future levels of carbon dioxide ( carbon) emissions, and controlling mercury emissions. Each of the hypothetical control options that the Agency examined considered in the Base Case the implementation of a nitrogen oxide ( NOx) reduction program that EPA recently promulgated in the NOx SIP call. That rule requires 22 States and the District of Columbia to submit State Implementation Plans under the CAAA that will decrease the transport of ozone in the eastern United States. 2 The NOx controls required by that rule will go into effect in 2003. This is before any of the hypothetical pollution control options that EPA examined in this study will go into effect.

For each pollution control option examined in this study, the Agency estimated changes that would occur for NOx, SO2, carbon, and mercury emissions. The study estimates the changes in air emissions ( not changes in air quality concentrations or environmental damage) that would occur, if any of the control options were implemented.

The options presented in this report are hypothetical approaches to emission controls on the electric power industry for each pollutant and do not represent the EPA or Administration position on how any of these pollutants should be reduced in the future. EPA has made no determinations whether or how much additional SO2 1 Issuance of this report satisfies a provision in a settlement agreement between the EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council concerning mercury from electric power plants. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 92 1415 ( D. C. Circuit). The settlement requires an analysis of the reduction in emissions of mercury ( and the effect on mercury removal costs) that would be achieved through an array of strategies to control the emissions of SO2, NOx, CO2, and mercury, and an analysis of the reductions on emissions of SO2, NOx, and CO2 that would be achieved through an array of strategies to control the emissions of mercury. 2 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 51, 72, 75, and 96 " Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for the Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone; Rule," 63 FR 57357 538 October 27, 1998. 1 2 control could be needed to address fine particulate problems, or whether and to what extent there should be future reductions of mercury or carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically with regard to carbon dioxide, the Administration has committed not to implement the Kyoto Protocol without the advice and consent of the Senate.

For interested readers, EPA has placed its data input files and important sections of the modeling runs at the following web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ capi. The Agency invites review and comment on the analyses provided in this report. 3 The remainder of this report is organized in the following chapters:

  Chapter 2 describes the methodology and the Base Case used in the analysis.

  Chapter 3 provides the results of the analysis on hypothetical options to lower SO2 and carbon emissions in the future.

  Chapter 4 provides the results of the analysis on hypothetical options to lower mercury emissions.

3 Please send comments to the Electric Power Air Emissions Study Docket, Office of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1151-1152]
[FR Doc No: 2011-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2497-000]

Great American Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

December 23, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Great American Power, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 12, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-38 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 188 (Friday, October 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54454-54455]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0341]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Safety; Federal-
State Food Regulatory Program Standards

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by November 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0760. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Showalter, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Food Safety; Federal-State Food Regulatory Program Standards

OMB Control Number 0910-0760--Revision

    This information collection supports implementation of FDA's
Federal-State Regulatory Program Standards, part of our National
Integrated Food Safety System (IFSS) Programs and Initiatives. For more
information we invite you to visit our website at: https://www.fda.gov/federal-state-local-tribal-and-territorial-officials/national-integrated-food-safety-system-ifss-programs-and-initiatives. In the
United States, Federal and State governments work cooperatively to
ensure the safety of food intended for both human and animal
consumption. Part of this effort includes developing and maintaining
uniform review criteria by which to assess food safety. FDA has
established and maintains a number of program standards aimed at
improving the safety evaluation for certain food products including
manufactured foods and animal feed. Similarly, we are establishing
regulatory program standards for eggs and have developed the ``Eggs
Regulatory Program Standards'' (ERPS). The ERPS is intended for use by
State and local regulatory officials and identifies 10 elements we
believe are essential to the effective regulatory assessment of egg
safety. States are encouraged to build systems that are sustainable and
implement plans corresponding to the IFSS.
    In the course of their normal duties, State, local, Territorial,
and Tribal governments collect information pertaining to compliance
with the respective State, local, Territorial, and Tribal food safety
requirements within their jurisdictions. Although content and format of
the information collected may vary, these activities are a usual and
customary part of routine regulatory oversight. Respondents to the
information collection are State, local, Territorial, and Tribal
regulatory agencies.
    The ERPS offers forms, worksheets, and templates to help
respondents assess and meet the program elements identified and
discussed. Respondents are not required to use the sample collection
instruments included in the ERPS, however all data elements should be
submitted to FDA and supporting documentation retained. The ERPS is

not intended to address any performance appraisal processes that any
State, local, Territorial, or Tribal agency may use to evaluate its
employees' performance. Funding opportunities are available to
respondents who choose to implement the ERPS; however, these
opportunities are limited and contingent upon the availability of
funds, and are available to those respondents who currently have an egg
inspection contract with FDA and thus are subject to auditing. A copy
of the ERPS has been posted to FDA-2021-N-0341 and is available at
https://www.regulations.gov.
    In the Federal Register of May 14, 2021 (86 FR 26528), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                   Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       Average burden
                   Type of respondents; activity                        Number of       records per      Total annual         per          Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, Territorial, and/or Tribal Governments; submission of              10               10              100               50            5,000
 data elements to FDA consistent with ERPS.........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on our experience with similar information collection, we
estimate an initial 10 respondents will participate in the ERPS, and
assume an average of 50 burden hours per response is necessary for the
attendant recordkeeping and submission of data elements to FDA. We
expect participation in the ERPS to increase. Finally, upon submission
of the Information Collection Request, we are correcting an inadvertent
calculation error in the total burden hours as displayed on page 26530,
in Table 1, in our 60-day notice in the Federal Register of May 14,
2021 (86 FR 26528).

    Dated: September 24, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-21367 Filed 9-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71501]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Dubois Regional Airport, Reynoldsville, Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Dubois Regional Airport, Reynoldsville,
Pennsylvania under the provision 49 U.P.C. 47125(a).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the following address: Robert W. Shaffer, Airport Manager, Dubois
Regional Airport, 377 Aviation Way, Reynoldsville, Pennsylvania 15851;
and at the FAA Harrisburg Airports District Office: Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Dr., Suite
508, Camp Hill, PA 17011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Trice, Civil Engineer,
Harrisburg Airports District Office, location listed above.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release airport property at the Dubois Regional Airport
under the provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C. On November
24, 2014, the FAA determined that the request to release airport
property at the Dubois Regional Airport (DUJ), Pennsylvania, submitted
by the Clearfield-Jefferson Counties Regional Airport Authority
(Authority), met the procedural requirements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request: The Authority
requests the release of two parcels of non-aeronautical airport
property totaling approximately 10.26 acres. Both parcels are located
in Washington Township, and were originally included as part of a
larger 53.5-acre property purchased with federal funds in 1988, under
AIP Grant No. 3-24-0023-05-88. A total of 10.26 acres are no longer
needed for aeronautical purposes.
    The first parcel consists of approximately 5.05 acres, and is
requested for release to Cactus Wellhead, LLC (Cactus) of
Reynoldsville, Pennsylvania. The property is in the northeast corner of
the existing Air Commerce Park adjacent to the Airport, west of
Aviation Way, and south of Pennsylvania State Route 830. Cactus is
proposing to use the 5.05-acre property to construct a building, a
parking lot, and other ancillary facilities in support of its existing
operation at the Airport.
    The second parcel consists of approximately 5.21 acres, and is
requested for release to Corbin Holdings, LLC (Corbin) of
Reynoldsville, Pennsylvania. The undeveloped property is the
northernmost parcel of obligated property at the Airport, and it is the
only airport property located north of State Route 830. As such, it is
not contiguous to other airport property, including those parcels which
form the Air Commerce Park. There is no plan for development of the
subject property. A conservation easement will be included in the deed
that will restrict any surface uses other than compatible agricultural
or wetland maintenance.
    As shown on the Airport Layout Plan, neither property serves an
aeronautical purpose, nor are they needed for airport development. All
proceeds from the sale of the properties are to be used toward funding
the federal share of AIP eligible projects only. Fair Market Value
(FMV) rate will be obtained from the land sale of each property.
    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the
proposed lease. All comments will be considered by the FAA to the
extent practicable.

    Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, November 24, 2014.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-28360 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53190-53191]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21307]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162; FRL-9916-26-OAR]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR) ``Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles'' (EPA ICR No. 2394.03, OMB Control No. 2060-
0678), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through February 28, 2015. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register on September 15, 2011 during a 60-
day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 60 days for
public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 7,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail
to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to
OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fakhri Hamady, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate 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) evaluate 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) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through 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. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: For this ICR, EPA is seeking a revision to an existing
package with a three year extension. Under ICR 2394.03, EPA collects
information regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.
    Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.), EPA
is charged with issuing certificates of conformity for motor vehicle
designs and engines that comply with applicable emission standards set
under section 202(a)(1) of the Act, such as those for CO2, N2O, and CH4
in the final regulation. This authority was clarified in the Supreme
Court's decision State of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
(holding that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act).
Under the statutory authority of 49 U.S.C. 32902, NHTSA is mandated to
require manufacturers comply with fuel economy and consumption
standards.
    The manufacturers regulated under this program must: (1) Submit
applications to certify vehicles; (2) submit reports with early
estimates to demonstrate their compliance plans; (3) conduct compliance
testing; (4) label certified vehicles; (5) provide final year-end-
reports with compliance test results; and (6) retain records of
information submitted to the agencies. A manufacturer must send an
application for a certificate of conformity and gain approval by EPA
before it can legally introduce any vehicle or engine into commerce in
the U.S. To ensure compliance with the CAA and EISA, EPA and NHTSA will
annually review a manufacturer's submitted information and compliance
test results. Manufacturer test results will be used by EPA to perform
confirmatory testing on a sufficient number of engines and vehicles to
confirm manufacturer-reported results. Limited equipment testing and
modeling runs will also be performed by NHTSA to confirm manufacturer
test results.
    EPA's emission certification programs and NHTSA's fuel efficiency
programs are statutorily mandated. EPA does not have discretion to
cease these functions. Specifically, under Section 206(a) of the CAA
(42 U.S.C. 7521).
    EPA and NHTSA also are establishing an Average, Banking and Trading
(ABT) program, as outlined in 40 CFR 1036.701 and 1037.701, and in 49
CFR 535.7. Engine and vehicle manufacturers covered by this HD National
Program have an option to participate in this ABT program. The
agencies' ABT programs, and others like it, are designed to enhance
compliance flexibility and reduce the burden on affected manufacturers,
without compromising the expected emissions benefits derived from EPA's
emissions standards and NHTSA's fuel consumption standards.
    The information requested is collected by the Diesel Engine
Compliance Center (DECC), Compliance Division (CD), Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA. DECC
uses this information to ensure that manufacturers are in compliance
with applicable regulations and the CAA. The information may also be
used by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the
Department of Justice for enforcement purposes. Most of the information
is collected in electronic format and stored in CD's databases.
    Manufacturers are allowed to assert a claim of confidentiality over
information provided to EPA. Confidentiality is granted in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part
2. Non-confidential information may be disclosed on OTAQ's Web site or
upon request under the Freedom of Information Act to trade
associations, environmental groups, and the public.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are manufacturers of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles; owners of heavy-duty truck fleets.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Engine manufacturers must
respond to this collection if they wish to sell their products in the
US, as prescribed by Section 206(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521).
Participation in ABT is voluntary, but once a manufacturer has elected
to participate, it must submit the required notifications and annual
reports (40 CFR 1036.730 and 1037.730). If applicable to a particular
engine family, compliance programs reporting is mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 34 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly, Annually, On Occasion, depending
on the type of response.
    Total estimated burden: 41,305 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,565,145 (per year), includes $1,458,333
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no change of hours in the total
estimated burden for ICR 2394.03 from the burden currently identified
in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.

    Dated: August 27, 2014.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014-21307 Filed 9-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16638-16640]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0750]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Craighill Channel, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the duration of a temporary
safety zone on certain navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of persons and the marine
environment from the potential safety hazards associated with the
damage assessment and salvage of the grounded freight ship EVER
FORWARD, through 9 p.m. on April 13, 2022. This rule prohibits persons
and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 24, 2022
until 9 p.m. on April 13, 2022. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from 9 p.m. on March 20, 2022, until March 24,
2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0750 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Next, in the
Document Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard: telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On March 14, 2022, the Coast Guard issued a final rule establishing
a temporary safety zone on certain navigable waters of the Chesapeake
Bay to protect persons and vessels during damage assessment and salvage
operations at the grounded 1,102-foot Hong Kong-flagged motor vessel
EVER FORWARD. The orignal rule runs through 9 p.m. on March 20, 2022.
However, additional time is needed to conduct the damage assessment and
salvage operations and, as a result, the Coast Guard needs to extend
the safety zone through 9 p.m. on April 13, 2022. The Coast Guard is
issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to
comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an
agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment
when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect
to this extension because it

would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast
Guard was unable to publish an NPRM and hold a reasonable comment
period for this rulemaking due to the emergent nature of the continuing
damage assessment and salvage operations and required publication of
this extension. Immediate action is needed to continue to protect
persons and vessels from the hazards associated with carrying out
damage assessment and salvage operations of the motor vessel EVER
FORWARD that must occur within the federal navigation channel. It is
impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM,
because the extension needs to be in place by March 21, 2022.
    We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest,
because immediate action is needed to continue to respond to the
potential safety hazards associated with damage assessment and salvage
operations of the motor vessel EVER FORWARD being conducted within the
federal navigation channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined there are
potential hazards associated with damage assessment and salvage
operations. The work is a safety concern for anyone transiting the
Chesapeake Bay within a 500-yard radius of the motor vessel EVER
FORWARD. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while
the damage assessment and salvage operations are being conducted.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule extends the effective dates of an established safety
zone, originally established on March 14, 2022 and effective through 9
p.m. on March 20, 2022, through 9 p.m. on April 13, 2022. The safety
zone includes all navigable waters within 500 yards of the motor vessel
EVER FORWARD. The extended duration of the zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters while damage assessment and salvage operations are conducted. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size of the
safety zone, which will impact only vessel traffic required to transit
certain navigation channels of the Chesapeake Bay for a total of no
more than 30 days. Although this waterway supports both commercial and
recreational vessel traffic, portions of the federal navigation channel
in the Chesapeake Bay will be opened as damage assessment and salvage
operations allow. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone that prohibits entry within 500 yards of the
motor vessel EVER FORWARD. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0750 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0750   Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Craighill Channel,
MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within a 500-yard radius of the motor
vessel EVER FORWARD during damage assessment and salvage operations.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal,
State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 p.m.
on March 20, 2022, through 9 p.m. on April 13, 2022.

    Dated: March 17, 2022.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Maryland-NCR.
[FR Doc. 2022-06230 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P