[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62428-62433]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21626]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0428, 0430, 0432, 0433, 0434, 0435, 0436 and 0437;
FRL-9952-05-OLEM]

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rulemaking proposes to add eight sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before November 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site name                     City/county, state                   Docket ID number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post and Lumber Preserving Co. Inc.....  Quincy, FL...............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0428
Microfab Inc (Former)..................  Amesbury, MA.............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0430
Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street.........  Valley, NE...............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0432
Anaconda Copper Mine...................  Yerington, NV............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0433
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics......  Village of Hoosick Falls,  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0434
                                          NY.
The Battery Recycling Company..........  Bo. Cambalache, PR.......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0435
Former Custom Cleaners.................  Memphis, TN..............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0436
Highway 18 Ground Water................  Kermit, TX...............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0437
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate docket number,
at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. To send a comment via the
United States Postal Service, use the following address:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Superfund Docket Center, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Use the Docket Center address below if you are using express mail,
commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier. Delivery verification
signatures will be available only during regular business hours:

EPA Superfund Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    For additional docket addresses and further details on their
contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public Comment,'' of the
Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
    B. How do I access the documents?
    C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
regional dockets?
    E. How do I submit my comments?
    F. What happens to my comments?
    G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
    H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR
part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section
105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP
sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial
threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several
occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990
(55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP
(40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires that
the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to
guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental
risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund section''), and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies.
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA
section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
    (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently
high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40
CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the
relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On
December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the
HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The
revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
    (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a
single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any
HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent
practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as
the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among
known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in
the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
    (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score,
if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
     The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.

The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* * '' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be

neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to
identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it
to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are
typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. Plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. Plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation
(``RI'') ``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release'' as more information is
developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability
to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the
EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-remedial-performance-measures#cc_anchor.

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows
contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic
vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the

following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
    The EPA is improving the transparency of the process by which state
and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where
appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1)
explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for
proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to
address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3)
emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states
that information on their responses will be publicly available.
    A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the
EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public
dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in
the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic
access at http://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the ADDRESSES
section above).

B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the regional dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal
holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William
Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/
566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments
to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
     Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
     Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA
19103; 215/814-3355.
     Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303;
404/562-8637.
     Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
     Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/
665-7436.
     Brian Mitchell, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201
Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7633.
     Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
303/312-6578.
     Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/947-4250.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note
that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized
maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not
equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them
out electronically.
    You may use the docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section). Please note that there are differences between the
Headquarters docket and the regional dockets and those differences are
outlined in this preamble, Sections II.C and D.

C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?

    The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
documentation records describing the information used to compute the
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the documentation record.

D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional
dockets?

    The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

E. How do I submit my comments?

    Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note
that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery.
There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are
sent by express mail or by postal mail.

F. What happens to my comments?

    The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document
if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

    Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally
not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional
dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public docket at http://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public dockets system,
select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add eight sites to
the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this
proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or
above.
    The sites are presented in the table below.

                                            General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                           Site name                              City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL..............................  Post and Lumber Preserving Co.    Quincy.
                                   Inc.
MA..............................  Microfab Inc (Former)...........  Amesbury.
NE..............................  Old HWY 275 and N 288th Street..  Valley.
NV..............................  Anaconda Copper Mine............  Yerington.
NY..............................  Saint-Gobain Performance          Village of Hoosick Falls.
                                   Plastics.
PR..............................  The Battery Recycling Company...  Bo. Cambalache.
TN..............................  Former Custom Cleaners..........  Memphis.
TX..............................  Highway 18 Ground Water.........  Kermit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is
liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends
on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL
through this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the

Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a
list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from
environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory
actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety
risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in
determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the
nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated
with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The
NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to
any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p.193.

    Dated: September 1, 2016.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2016-21626 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 22, 2005

                     NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20150

_____________________________________________________________

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

Application of   Continental Airlines, Inc.  filed  1/21/2005 for:

XX  Allocation of U.S.-Colombia combination frequencies.

Continental seeks seven additional U.S.-Colombia frequencies to
institute daily nonstop round-trip Houston-Cali service on June 9, 2005.
 Contintental further requests the flexibility to use the frequencies
awarded here to serve Houston-Medellin.  Finally, Continental requests
the flexibility to operate four of the requested seven frequencies on a
seasonal basis.

The Houston Parties filed an answer in support of the Continental
application.

Applicant rep.:  R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT analyst:
Linda Senese<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  February 22, 2005, and will
remain in effect indefinitely, subject to the conditions noted below.

XX  Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the Air Transport Agreement
between the United States and Colombia.

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

	XX  Holder’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity

(See Reverse Side)

2

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

Conditions:  Consistent with our standard practice, the frequency
allocation granted is subject to the condition that if any of the
frequencies (once inaugurated) are not used for a period of 90 days
(except as to the four frequencies in seasonal use), the allocation as
to each of the unused frequencies will expire automatically and the
unused frequencies will revert to the Department for reallocation.  If
Continental does not begin service with all of the allocated frequencies
by June 23, 2005, each unused frequency will automatically revert to the
Department for reallocation.  As to the four frequencies that
Continental has stated will be used in seasonal service, should
Continental determine that these frequencies will return to year-round
operations, it must notify the Department and those frequencies will
then also be subject to standard dormancy conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

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

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

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

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

 Continental holds underlying Houston-Cali route authority by virtue of
the certificate we awarded it in Order 2001-12-8.  For the underlying
Houston-Medellin route authority, Continental relies on the route
integration authority that we awarded it by Order 2001-5-26.

 The Houston Parties consist of the City of Houston and the Greater
Houston Partnership.

 While Continental states that it will begin service June 9, 2005, we
will extend the startup date slightly beyond that date to provide a
reasonable opportunity for full introduction of the new service proposed
without the risk of losing frequencies.  Should Continental need an
extension beyond June 23, it will need to request such extension
formally.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9225]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-24-000]

Pioneer Transmission, LLC v. Northern Indiana Public Service
Company Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice
of Complaint

    Take notice that on February 8, 2012, pursuant to sections 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2006), and Rule
206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206
(2011), Pioneer Transmission, LLC (Pioneer) filed a formal complaint
against Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) and Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) alleging that (1)
NIPSCO does not have ownership and investment rights to any of the
765kV investment associated with the segment of the Pioneer project
that MISO recently included in its 2011 regional transmission expansion
plan, and (2) Pioneer should be allowed to become a party to the MISO
Transmission Owners Agreement immediately and begin recovering costs
(CWIP) in accordance with FERC's order approving transmission rate
incentives for Pioneer.
    Pioneer certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for NIPSCO and MISO as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2012.

    Dated: February 9, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3598 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33222-33223]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11662]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-504, OMB Control No. 3235-0561]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 12d3-1

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit these existing collections of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 12d3-1 (17 CFR 270.12d3-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') permits a
fund to invest up to five percent of its assets in securities of an
issuer deriving more than fifteen percent of its gross revenues from
securities-related businesses (subject to certain limitations),
notwithstanding the general prohibition in Section 12(d)(3) of the
Investment Company Act of a registered investment company (``fund'')
and companies controlled by the fund purchasing securities issued by a
registered investment adviser, broker, dealer, or underwriter
(``securities-related businesses'').
    A fund may, however, rely on an exemption in rule 12d3-1 to acquire
securities issued by its subadvisers in circumstances in which the
subadviser would have little ability to take advantage of the fund,
because it is not in a position to direct the fund's securities
purchases. This exemption in rule 12d3-1 is available if: (i) The
subadviser is not, and is not an affiliated person of, an investment
adviser that provides advice with respect to the portion of the fund
that is acquiring the securities; and (ii) the advisory contracts of
the subadviser, and any subadviser that is advising the purchasing
portion of the fund, prohibit them from consulting with each other
concerning securities transactions of the fund, and limit their
responsibility in providing advice to providing advice with respect to
discrete portions of the fund's portfolio.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 270.270.12d3-1(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 12d3-1 requires funds to amend their subadvisory contracts
before they can rely on rule 12d3-1's exemption to ensure that the
subadviser that engages in the transaction does not influence the
fund's investment decision to engage in the transaction.
    Based on an analysis of fund filings, Commission staff estimates
that approximately 285 funds enter into such new subadvisory agreements
each year, and that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours to
draft and execute additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in
order for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in
rule 12d3-1. Because these additional clauses are identical to the
clauses that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts
to rely on rules 10f-3 (17 CFR 270.10f-3), 17a-10 (17 CFR 270.17a-10),
and 17e-1 (17 CFR 270.17e-1), and because we believe that funds that
use one such rule generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3
hour time burden equally to all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that
the burden allocated to rule 12d3-1 for this contract change

would be 0.75 hours. Assuming that all 285 funds that enter into new
subadvisory contracts each year make the modification to their contract
required by the rule, we estimate that the rule's contract modification
requirement will result in 214 burden hours annually.
    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 control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication by August 1, 2022.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: May 25, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11662 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31105-31107]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12219]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0176; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Sioux City, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class D and Class E airspace at Sioux
Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, Sioux City, IA. This
action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Sioux City VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)
navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON)
Program. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport are also
being

updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 12, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 15445; March 23, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0176 to
amend the amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Sioux Gateway
Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, Sioux City, IA. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July
21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Amends the Class D airspace at Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier
General Bud Day Field, Sioux City, IA, by adding an extension 1 mile
each side of the 001[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the
4.3-mile radius to 4.4 miles north of the airport; updates the name
(previously Sioux Gateway/Col. Bud Day Field) and geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database; removes the cities associated with the airports to comply
with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters; and updates the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory''
to ``Chart Supplement'';
    Amends the Class E surface airspace at Sioux Gateway Airport/
Brigadier General Bud Day Field by adding an extension 1 mile each side
of the 001[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile
radius to 4.4 miles north of the airport; updates the name (previously
Sioux Gateway/Col. Bud Day Field) and geographic coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removes the
cities associated with the airports to comply with changes to FAA Order
7400.2M; and updates the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory''
to ``Chart Supplement'';
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day
Field by removing the Sioux City VORTAC and associated extension from
the airspace legal description; amends the extension northwest of the
airport to within 3.9 miles (decreased from 4 miles) either side of the
316[deg] (previously 001[deg]) bearing from the Sioux Gateway/Brig.
General Bud Day FLD: RWY 13-LOC (previously Sioux Gateway Airport/Col.
Bud Day Field) extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the Sioux Gateway
Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field to 14.4 miles northwest of the
Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field; adds an
extension 3.9-miles each side of the 316[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 7.1 miles
northwest of the airport; removes the city associated with the airport
to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M; and updates the name
(previously Sioux Gateway Airport/Col. Bud Day Field) and geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Sioux City VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the
VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA

Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,''
paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE IA D Sioux City, IA [Amended]

Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, IA
    (Lat. 42[deg]24'09'' N, long. 96[deg]23'05'' W)
Martin Field, NE
    (Lat. 42[deg]27'15'' N, long. 96[deg]28'21'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,600 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Sioux Gateway Airport/
Brigadier General Bud Day Field excluding that airspace within a 1-
mile radius of Martin Field, and within 1 mile either side of the
001[deg] bearing from the Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General
Bud Day Field extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Sioux Gateway
Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field to 4.4 miles north of the
Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field. This Class D
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE IA E2 Sioux City, IA [Amended]

Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, IA
    (Lat. 42[deg]24'09'' N, long. 96[deg]23'05'' W)
Martin Field, NE
    (Lat. 42[deg]27'15'' N, long. 96[deg]28'21'' W)

    That airspace within a 4.3-mile radius of Sioux Gateway Airport/
Brigadier General Bud Day Field, excluding that airspace within a 1-
mile radius of Martin Field, and within 1 mile either side of the
001[deg] bearing from the Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General
Bud Day Field extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Sioux Gateway
Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field to 4.4 miles north of the
Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

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

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Sioux City, IA [Amended]

Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, IA
    (Lat. 42[deg]24'09'' N, long. 96[deg]23'05'' W)
Sioux Gateway/Brig. General Bud Day FLD: RWY 13-LOC
    (Lat. 42[deg]23'21'' N, long. 96[deg]22'17'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General
Bud Day Field, and within 3.9 miles each side of the 316[deg]
bearing from Sioux Gateway/Brig. General Bud Day FLD: RWY 13-LOC
extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the Sioux Gateway Airport/
Brigadier General Bud Day Field to 14.4 miles northwest of the Sioux
Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, and within 3.9
miles each side of the 316[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 7.1 miles northwest of
the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 7, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-12219 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 209 (Thursday, October 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 66543]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0286]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry on Formal
Meetings Between the Food and Drug Administration and Biosimilar
Biological Product Sponsors or Applicants

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry on Formal
Meetings Between the Food and Drug Administration and Biosimilar
Biological Product Sponsors or Applicant'' has been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 25, 2015, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry on
Formal Meetings Between the Food and Drug Administration and Biosimilar
Biological Product Sponsors or Applicant'' to OMB for review and
clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now
approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number
0910-0802. The approval expires on September 30, 2018. A copy of the
supporting statement for this information collection is available on
the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 23, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-27558 Filed 10-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 129-130]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28426]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0169, SEC File No. 270-172]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Form N-5

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form N-5 (17 CFR 239.24 and 274.5) is the form used by small
business investment companies (``SBICs'') to register their securities
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities
Act'') and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.)
(``Investment Company Act''). Form N-5 is the registration statement
form adopted by the Commission for use by an SBIC that has been
licensed as such under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 or
which has received the preliminary approval of the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') and has been notified by the SBA that the
company may submit a license application Form N-5 is an integrated
registration form and may be used as the registration statement under
both the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act. The purpose of
Form N-5 is to meet the filing and disclosure requirements of both the
Securities Act and Investment Company Act, and to provide investors
with information sufficient to evaluate an investment in an SBIC. The
information that is required to be filed with the Commission permits
verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures
the public availability and dissemination of the information.
    The Commission did not receive any filings on Form N-5 in the last
three years (and in the three years before that, received only one Form
N-5 filing). Nevertheless, for purposes of this PRA, we conservatively
estimate that at least one Form N-5 will be filed in the next three
years, which translates to about 0.333 filings on Form N-5 per year.
The currently approved internal burden of Form N-5 is 352 hours per
response. We continue to believe this estimate for Form N-5's internal
hour burden is appropriate. Therefore, the number of currently approved
aggregate burden hours, when calculated using the current estimate for
number of filings, is about 117 internal hours per year.
    The currently approved external cost burden of Form N-5 is $10,100
per filing. The requested external cost burden for filing one Form N-5
would be $12,524 per year. This estimated burden is based on the
estimated wage rate of $496/hour, for 25.25 hours, for outside legal
services to complete the form and provide the required hyperlinks.
    Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of
information requirements of Form N-5 is mandatory. Responses to the
collection of information will not be kept confidential. 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.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John R.
Pezzullo 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Written comments and recommendations for the
proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of
publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function.

    Dated: December 28, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28426 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1266-1268]
[FR Doc No: 2016-252]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76830; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-163]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Delay of Implementation of Kill Switch

January 5, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 23, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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 Exchange proposes to extend the implementation timeframe for
adopting an optional Kill Switch protection.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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 proposal is to extend the implementation of the
timeframe to adopt a new risk protection, a Kill Switch, applicable to
all NOM Participants. In its rule change adopting this new risk
protection in Chapter VI, Section 6, the Exchange stated, ``The
Exchange proposes to implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the
implementation date.'' \3\ The Exchange stated that it will issue an
Options Trader Alert in advance to inform market participants of such
date. At this time, the Exchange desires to extend the implementation
of this rule change to 120 days from the operative date. The Exchange
will announce the date of implementation by issuing an Options Trader
Alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75743 (August 20,
2015), 80 FR 51850 (August 26, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-096).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, the Kill Switch will allow NOM Participants
to remove quotes and cancel open orders and prevent new order
submission. The NASDAQ Options Kill Switch will be an optional tool
that enables

Participants to initiate a message(s) \4\ to the System to: (i)
Promptly remove quotes; and/or (ii) promptly cancel orders.
Participants may submit a request to the System to remove/cancel quotes
and/or orders based on certain identifiers on either a user or group
level. Participants may elect to remove quotes and cancel orders by
Exchange account, port, and/or badge or mnemonic (``Identifier'') or by
a group (one or more Identifier combinations),\5\ which are provided by
such Participant to the Exchange.\6\ Participants may not remove
quotes/orders by symbol. The System will send an automated message to
the Participant when a Kill Switch request has been processed by the
Exchange's System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NOM Participants will be able to utilize an interface to
send a message to the Exchange to initiate the Kill Switch or they
may contact the Exchange directly.
    \5\ The type of group permissible would be within a broker-
dealer. For example, this could be including but not limited to all
market maker accounts or all order entry ports.
    \6\ Orders submitted by NOM Market Makers over Ouch to Trade
Options (OTTO) interface will be treated as quotes for purposes of
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Participant selects quotes to be cancelled utilizing the
Kill Switch, the NOM Participant must send a message to the Exchange to
request the removal of all quotes requested for the certain specified
Identifier(s). The NOM Participant will be unable to enter any
additional quotes for the affected Identifier(s) until re-entry has
been enabled pursuant to proposed section (d)(iii).\7\ If the
Participant selects orders to be cancelled utilizing the Kill Switch,
the NOM Participant must send a message to the Exchange to request the
cancellation of all orders requested for the certain specified
Identifier(s). The NOM Participant will be unable to enter additional
orders for the affected Identifier(s) until re-entry has been enabled
pursuant to section (d)(iii). The NOM Participant will be unable to
enter additional quotes and/or orders for the affected Identifier(s)
until the NOM Participant has made a request to the Exchange and
Exchange staff has set a re-entry indicator to enable re-entry.\8\ Once
enabled for re-entry, the System will send a Re-entry Notification
Message to the NOM Participant. The applicable Clearing Participant for
that NOM Participant also will be notified of the re-entry into the
System after quotes and/or orders are removed/cancelled as a result of
the Kill Switch, provided the Clearing Participant has requested to
receive such notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sweeps will also be cancelled. A sweep is a one-sided
electronic quote submitted over the Specialized Quote Feed, which is
the market making quoting interface.
    \8\ The NOM Participant must directly and verbally contact the
Exchange to request the re-set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by enhancing the risk protections available to Exchange
members. The proposal promotes policy goals of the Commission which has
encouraged execution venues, exchange and non-exchange alike, to
enhance risk protection tools and other mechanisms to decrease risk and
increase stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The delay of the implementation of NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section
6 will permit the Exchange an additional thirty days within which to
implement this risk protection that will be utilized by NOM
Participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not impose an
undue burden on inter-market competition because all NOM Participants
may avail themselves of the Kill Switch, which functionality will be
optional. The proposed rule change is meant to protect NOM Participants
in the event the NOM Participant is suffering from a systems issue or
from the occurrence of unusual or unexpected market activity that would
require them to withdraw from the market in order to protect investors.
The ability to control risk at either the user or group level will
permit the NOM Participant to protect itself from inadvertent exposure
to excessive risk at the each level. Reducing such risk will enable NOM
Participants to enter quotes and orders without any fear of inadvertent
exposure to excessive risk, which in turn will benefit investors
through increased liquidity for the execution of their orders. Such
increased liquidity benefits investors because they receive better
prices and because it lowers volatility in the options market. For
these reasons, the Exchange does not believe this proposal imposes an
undue burden on inter-market competition, rather, the proposed rule
change will have no impact on competition.
    The delay of the implementation of NOM Rules at Chapter VII,
Section 6(f) will permit the Exchange additional time to implement this
risk protection that will be utilized by NOM Participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because the extension will provide the Exchange with the additional
time it requires to implement the Kill Switch program. The Commission
further notes that Nasdaq's proposal to adopt the Kill Switch \13\ was
approved by the Commission \14\ and that the extension of the
implementation period does not affect the parameters of the Kill Switch
program. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 3.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76123 (Oct. 9,
2015), 80 FR 62591 (Oct. 16, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-096).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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 proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-163 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-163. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-163 and should
be submitted on or before February 1, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-252 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62727-62729]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0845]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Potomac River, Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Potomac River. The safety zone is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on these
navigable waters near Washington, DC, on October 22, 2022, (no rain
date) from potential hazards during a fireworks display. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port,

Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on
October 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0845 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 MST2 Courtney Perry, Sector Maryland-National Capital
Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-
576-2596, 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 September 29, 2022, the Coast Guard was notified of a fireworks
display by event planners. 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
rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to
do so. We must establish this safety zone by October 22, 2022, to
protect the public from hazards associated with the fireworks event.
Hazards include explosive materials, dangerous projectiles, and falling
debris. The fireworks fallout zone extends across the navigable
channel.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with the fireworks display.

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 Captain of the Port, Sector
Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential
hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in the October 22,
2022, display will be a safety concern for anyone near the fireworks
barge. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone
before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30
p.m. on October 22, 2022. The safety zone covers all navigable waters
of the Potomac River within 400 feet of the fireworks barge in
approximate position latitude 38[deg]53'39.7'' N, longitude
077[deg]03'29.7'' W, located near the John F. Kennedy Center for
Performing Arts in Washington, DC. The size of the zone and the
duration of the rule are intended to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and
after the scheduled fireworks display. 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,
duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone, which will impact a small
designated area of the Potomac River for 2 hours, during the evening,
when vessel traffic is normally low. Furthermore, the Coast Guard
conducted outreach on October 5, 2022, to the area's predominant
commercial passenger vessel operator to determine if previously
scheduled transits along the waterway would be impacted by this safety
zone, and was told there were none scheduled. 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 safety
zone lasting only 2 hours that will prohibit entry within a portion of
the Potomac River. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 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.T05-0845 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0845   Safety Zone; Potomac River, Washington, DC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Potomac River within 400 feet of the fireworks barge in
approximate position latitude 38[deg]53'39.7'' N, longitude
077[deg]03'29.7'' W located near the John F. Kennedy Center for
Performing Arts, in Washington, DC. These coordinates are based on
datum North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (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 who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcing the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (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 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this
section can be contacted 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 8:30
p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on October 22, 2022.

    Dated: October 11, 2022.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-22462 Filed 10-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P