[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12433-12436]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0074; Notice 2]

Baby Trend, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Baby Trend, Inc., (BT), has determined that certain BT Hybrid
3-in-1 Combination Booster Seat child restraint systems (CRSs) do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, Child Restraint Systems. BT filed an original noncompliance report
dated July 6, 2022. BT subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 1, 2022,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the denial of
BT's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    BT determined that certain BT Hybrid 3-in-1 Combination Booster
Seat CRSs do not fully comply with paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No.
213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213).
    BT filed an original noncompliance report dated July 6, 2022,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. BT petitioned NHTSA on August 1, 2022, for an exemption
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates
to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of BT's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 9, 2022, in the Federal Register
(87 FR 55465). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2022-0074.''

II. Child Restraint Systems Involved

    Approximately 101,361 BT Hybrid 3-in-1 Combination Booster Seat
CRSs, manufactured from December 6, 2021, to June 6, 2022,\1\ are
potentially involved:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As reported in BT's July 6, 2022, Part 573 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Noncompliance

    BT explains that the lower anchor webbing in the subject CRSs
failed the minimum required breaking \2\ strength when tested in
accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209, referenced in FMVSS No. 213
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a). Specifically, the breaking strength of the lower anchor
webbing of the Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH \3\)
system in the subject CRSs was 13,926 Newtons (N), 13,940 N, and 14,087
N when tested by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In its petition, BT refers to breaking as tensile.
    \3\ ``LATCH'' refers to the child restraint anchorage system
that FMVSS 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' requires to
be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have
developed the term ``LATCH'' to refer to Standard 225's child
restraint anchorage system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No. 213 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. The webbing of belts provided with a child
restraint system and used to attach the system to the vehicle must have
a minimum breaking strength for new webbing of not less than 15,000 N,
including the tether and lower anchorages of a child restraint
anchorage system, when tested in accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209.
``New webbing'' means webbing that has not been exposed to abrasion,
light or micro-organisms as specified elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213.

V. Summary of BT's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of BT's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by BT.
They do not reflect the views of the Agency. BT describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Upon receiving an information request from NHTSA on June 6, 2022,
regarding the subject noncompliance, BT states that production and
distribution of the subject CRSs were halted, and BT began an
investigation. BT states that, as part of its investigation, it
conducted dynamic sled testing, webbing testing and examined internal
processes to determine the root cause of the noncompliance. As a result
of its investigation, BT found that the wrong webbing, with a failure
threshold characterized as marginally below the breaking strength
required in FMVSS No. 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), was installed in a portion of
the subject CRSs, but BT believes, through its analysis of existing and
new test data, that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    BT claims that FMVSS No. 213 dynamic sled testing ensures the
structural integrity of the subject CRSs and that this is supported by
NHTSA's November 2, 2020, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking \4\ (NPRM)
regarding FMVSS No. 213, where the Agency determined that no change in
the severity of the FMVSS No. 213 crash pulse was warranted. In its
petition, BT questions ``the utility of considering the webbing
strength tests in isolation rather than the integrity of the LATCH
system as required under FMVSS 213.'' BT believes the webbing strength
tests specified in FMVSS No. 213 have utility in safety ``only in the
context of maintaining strength of the webbing with wear and tear of
the child restraint following years of use'' and asserts that the
unabraded webbing strength test is not necessary to ensure the
structural integrity of a CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint
Systems, Incorporation by Reference; 85 FR 69388 (November 2, 2020.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BT states that in addition to the dynamic sled testing required by
FMVSS No. 213, it conducts dynamic sled testing, through Consumer's
Union (CU), on child restraints produced by each of its factories. BT
contends that if NHTSA previously found the dynamic sled testing at 48
kph to be sufficient to ensure the structural integrity of a CRS, BT's
additional CU testing is also similarly sufficient.
    The CU dynamic testing, as BT explains, has important differences
from that required by FMVSS No. 213. First, the test is conducted at 56
kph whereas the FMVSS No. 213 test is conducted at 48 kph. Second, the
bench used is derived from a vehicle seat, providing ``a boundary
condition for LATCH attachment and seat cushion-to-CRS interaction.''
Finally, the CU test protocol includes a structure to represent the
seat in front of the CRS seat position, which, BT claims, provides a
``clear tell-tale'' of failure in any way of the LATCH lower anchor
belt in adequately restraining the CRS and its occupant.
    BT also claims that the minimum LATCH lower anchor webbing strength
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 are unrealistic, based on dynamic crash
testing it conducted on the Hybrid 3-in-1 CRSs using the same incorrect
webbing used on the noncompliant CRSs that are the subject of its
petition, and without attaching the CRS' tether to the tether anchor.
This testing, as BT explains, was conducted on the test bench proposed
by NHTSA in the 2020 FMVSS No. 213 NPRM.\5\ Other test apparatus and
conditions used in its testing were those either specified in FMVSS No.
213, and/or the current NPRM, or ``widely accepted'' as due care tests.
For the tests BT conducted in the frontal direction, sled test speeds
ranging from 57.1 kph to 63.9 kph were used. See the Table \6\ in BT's
petition for the parameters used in its testing. BT states that it is
confident that its frontal sled testing conducted at ``64 kph . . .
encompasses all crashes including the most severe crashes'' and that
``at no time and in no test did the LATCH Lower Anchor webbing or belt
system fail to perform its intended purpose of restraining the CRS.''
BT also found ``that at no time during any of these tests did the LATCH
Lower Anchor webbing load exceed 5,000 Newtons and, more importantly,
come even close to the 15,000 Newton minimum threshold'' required by
FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Section 3 of BT's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, BT shares a graphic \7\ to illustrate its beliefs
for the minimum strength of various components in the LATCH system and
points to examples where, ``in the rare instances of failures of the
LATCH system, the failures occurred in . . . the LATCH lower anchor on
the vehicle.'' Thus, BT contends that the webbing is not the weak link
in the LATCH lower anchor system, and that ``any deficiencies with the
strength of the LATCH Lower Anchor webbing would have been revealed in
the dynamic sled tests of FMVSS 213.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 5 of BT's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BT states that there is no evidence of webbing failure in any CRS
in the real world, that it has never received a complaint, nor has any
knowledge, of a webbing failure on any of its products in the real
world.
    BT concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its
petition.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and
difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not

found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\9\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \10\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BT makes several claims and assertions in support of its petition,
including its claim that the wrong webbing installed in the subject
CRSs had a breaking strength ``marginally'' below that required by
FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not agree, based on its own compliance test
results, that the breaking strength values were marginal. Next, BT
claims it to be ``NHTSA's current and well-justified position'' that
the dynamic sled testing contained in FMVSS No. 213 ensures the
structural integrity of the ``CRS system, including the LATCH lower
anchor webbing in an unabraded condition.'' BT furthers this claim,
opining that the Agency should also conclude that BT's CU testing it
conducts ``is similarly sufficient to ensure structural integrity of a
CRS'' based on ``important differences'' from FMVSS No. 213, i.e., a
test speed of 56 kph and a test bench derived from a vehicle seat.
NHTSA does not find these claims to be relevant or persuasive. It
appears that BT is misapplying the conclusion the Agency made in the
2020 FMVSS No. 213 NPRM (supra), i.e., that there was no safety need to
increase the sled acceleration pulse for the dynamic systems test in
S6.1 of FMVSS No. 213. This conclusion was specific to the child
restraint system dynamic test. This test is not the only performance
test in FMVSS No. 213 and does not address the same conditions, nor
serve the same purpose, as the webbing breaking strength test. NHTSA
has multiple tests because a single test does not address the range of
safety concerns with child restraints. The breaking strength
requirements ensure that the performance of the webbing over the
lifetime of a child restraint system is sufficient to provide the
necessary protection, even after wear and tear that webbing can
experience during the course of normal use.
    BT asserts that the unabraded webbing strength test is not
necessary to ensure the structural integrity of a CRS, and that the
minimum LATCH lower anchor webbing strength requirements of FMVSS No.
213 are unrealistic. BT bases this assertion on dynamic crash testing
it conducted on the Hybrid 3-in-1 CRSs using the same incorrect webbing
used on the noncompliant CRSs subject of its petition. According to its
petition, tests were conducted at 63.9 kph without attaching the tether
to its corresponding anchor, asserting that under this condition ``the
entire restraining load was borne by the LATCH webbing.''
    BT also states, ``at no time and in no test did the LATCH Lower
Anchor webbing or belt system fail to perform its intended purpose of
restraining the CRS'' and that the loads on the subject webbing during
any of the foregoing tests did not exceed 5,000 N. This argument
challenges the stringency of the requirement in the standard, to which
a petition for rulemaking, not an inconsequentiality petition, is the
appropriate means.\11\ Moreover, even if these foregoing arguments were
relevant, NHTSA does not find them availing. As explained in NHTSA's
2006 Final Rule \12\ adopting the new webbing breaking strength
requirements, Standard 213's minimum requirements are not intended to
only ensure that CRSs in new condition are safe, but also safe in the
cases of foreseeable wear, such as in the breaking strength requirement
to which this population of CRSs failed to comply. Requirements at the
component level increase the likelihood that components, like webbing,
maintain their integrity for the lifetime of the child restraint. Such
comparable assurances are not provided by the dynamic system test in
Standard 213, added in December 1979.\13\ In 2002, the Agency found it
inappropriate that minimum breaking strength requirements for new
webbing in child restraint systems were absent from FMVSS No. 213 \14\
and the 2005-2006 rulemaking ensued. This established NHTSA's long-
standing position that webbing strength requirements are necessary for
safety and, consistent with how we addressed past similar arguments
\15\ by CRS manufacturers who submitted webbing load force data
generated in dynamic testing to demonstrate apparent safety margins in
comparison to webbing breaking strength test results, BT has not
compelled NHTSA to consider otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510, January 5, 2010.
    \12\ 71 FR 32855 (June 7, 2006).
    \13\ 44 FR 72131 (December 13, 1979).
    \14\ Evenflo Company, Inc., Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 67 FR 21798 (May 1, 2002).
    \15\ Combi USA, Inc., 78 FR 71028 (Nov. 27, 2013), Combi USA,
Inc., 86 FR 47723 (Aug. 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is also not persuaded by BT's argument, as its petition
further goes on in Section 5, that ``any deficiencies with the strength
of the LATCH Lower Anchor webbing would have been revealed in the
dynamic sled tests of FMVSS 213.'' As explained above, FMVSS No. 213
has multiple performance tests serving different purposes. It is not
proper to apply or substitute the outcome from one test for another; to
be compliant with FMVSS No. 213 all applicable requirements must be
satisfied.\16\ Thus, BT has not met its burden of persuasion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ BT asserts that the noncompliance of the BT Hybrid 3-in-1
would have been ``revealed'' in the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance's (OVSC) compliance program's dynamic testing. NHTSA
notes that the Agency's dynamic testing of BT's Hybrid 3-in1 did not
result in LATCH lower anchor webbing failures. See https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-647891-2022-001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, neither BT's claim that there is no evidence of any CRS
webbing failures, including on any of its products, in the real world,
nor BT's lack of complaints are persuasive to the Agency.
Notwithstanding that BT did not provide any evidence to support these
claims, as stated at this notice's onset NHTSA does not consider the
absence of complaints or injuries when determining if a noncompliance
is inconsequential to safety.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that BT has
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 213
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly, BT's petition is hereby denied, and BT is consequently
obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2023-03926 Filed 2-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DOCKET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:	Input data for the ozone and PM2.5 environmental justice exposure analysis completed using BenMAP-CE as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 		March 20, 2023
EPA has placed into docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794 files used in generating the EJ exposure analysis completed using BenMAP-CE as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review. The assessment was completed using BenMAP-CE version <IP_ADDRESS>. Population-weighted exposure estimates can be reproduced either by performing individual parameterized runs for a given air quality scenario using the BenMAP graphical user interface (GUI) or performing batch runs using scripts. However, the latter method is recommended.
BenMAP runs were batch processed using command line and a written script. The full set of estimates can be reproduced using the automation script files available in the docket materials, which can be run from the command prompt using the input air quality surface files. See Appendix L of the BenMAP manual for additional details on running BenMAP through the command line and the Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits Technical Support Document (TSD) for additional information of selection of health endpoints and concentration-response relationships.
Standard BenMAP folders are included in the docket materials, described below. Script files can be reviewed and modified in a text editor such as Notepad++, which includes comments preceded by "#". Three script files were used for this analysis.:
 "MATS_RTR_PM_2028&2030&2035_EJ_exposure.ctlx" produces the aggregated and distributional PM2.5 exposure results
 "MATS_RTR_Ozone_2028&2030&2035_EJ_exposure.ctlx" produces the aggregated and distributional ozone exposure results

Prior to running the script from the command line, several subdirectory pointers within the automation code must be set to where the user has placed the input files and results directories for outputs (e.g., "[INSERT FILE LOCATION]"). Imbedded notes within the automation code highlight the pointers which must be updated, which appear near the beginning of the script files. Once pointers have been updated and the required input files have been placed in the appropriate subdirectories (see below), then the script run is initiated with the below commands from the command prompt:
 Direct the command line prompt to the location where the BenMAP program is located (e.g., "cd\program files (x86)\BenMAP-CE") and hit Enter
 Direct the command line prompt to the script file (e.g., start/wait "" "C:\program files (x86)\benmap-ce\benmap.exe" "C:\[INSERT FILE LOCATION}\ MATS_RTR_PM_2028&2030&2035_EJ_exposure.ctlx")

In order to run the automated scripts, make sure that the following subdirectories have been created, include the necessary input files, and the scripts have been edited to their location:

 "Inputs" Containing the air quality grid .csv (or .xlsx) files
 "AQG" Will be the location of output .aqgx air quality gridded surface files
 "CFG" Containing the BenMAP configuration file used as the basis for generating risk estimates, e.g., 2028_Ozone_exposure.cfgx
 "APV" Contains BenMAP aggregation and pooling file which allows .apvx and .cfgrx reports containing the risk estimates to be generated, e.g., 2030_Ozone_exposure.apvx
 "Reports" Will be the location of exposure output .csv files. Please add this folder to your intended file location.
 "Results" Will be the location of exposure output .cfgrx and .apvrx files. Please add this folder to your intended file location.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36763-36766]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13175]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0186]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; East River 4th of July Fireworks, New
York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
the navigable waters of the East River and New York Harbor, New York,
NY, for vessel management for the annual 4th of July fireworks
displays. This special local regulation allows the Coast Guard to
control vessel movement and prohibit all vessel traffic from entering
the fireworks barge buffer zone, establish four separate viewing areas,
and a moving protection zone around the barges while they are loaded
with pyrotechnics. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of
life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after a
fireworks display that involves multiple barge launch sites on a highly
congested waterway.

DATES: This rule is effective July 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0186 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Stacy Stevenson, Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On March 7, 2022 the Coast Guard received an Application for Marine
Event for the annual 4th of July fireworks display. In response, on
April 26, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation; East River 4th of
July Fireworks, New York, NY (87 FR 24923). We stated why we issued the
NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
this fireworks display. We received no comments during the comment
period that ended May 27, 2022.
    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. The comment period for the NPRM
associated with the East River 4th of July Fireworks ended on May 27,
2022. The fireworks display is scheduled to begin on July 4, 2022.
Thus, there is now insufficient time for a 30 day effective period
before the need to enforce the special local regulation on July 4,
2022. The fireworks display will take place on July 4, 2022 to coincide
with Independence Day. Delaying the enforcement of this special local
regulation to allow a 30-day effective period will be impractical and
contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast
Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways
safe.

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 New York
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a high
concentration of vessels, and a fireworks display will be a safety
concern for people and vessels in the vicinity of the fireworks barges.
This Special Local Regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels from hazards immediately prior to, during, and immediately
after the annual Macy's 4th of July fireworks show.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April
26, 2022. There are no substantative changes in the regulatory text of
this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a special local regulation annually on July
4th or July 5th from 5:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. This special local
regulation will include a moving protection zone excluding all vessels
from entering within a 25-yard radius from each loaded fireworks barge
from the point of departure from the loading facility, during the
transit of the New York Harbor, and until the placement in show
position on the East River. The buffer zone will exclude all
nonparticipating vessels from the area surrounding the barges
immediately before, during, and after the display. Four separate
viewing areas will be established that will separate vessels based on
vessel length.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN22.065

BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
    The duration of the viewing areas are intended to ensure the safety
of vessels, participants, spectators, and those transiting the area
during the fireworks display. Navigation rules shall apply at all times
within the areas. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special
local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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 duration and
time-of-day of the Special Local Regulation. Vessel traffic will only
be restricted in the regulated area areas for approximately 6 hours,
annually on either July 4th, or July 5th. Advanced public notifications
will also be made to local mariners through appropriate means, which
may include but not limited to Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

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 enter or
transit within the Special Local Regulation may be small entities, for
the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
regulated area lasting approximately 6 hours that would limit persons
or vessels from transiting a portion of the East River during the
scheduled event. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for Record supporting this determination
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.110 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.110  East River 4th of July Fireworks, East River, Manhattan,
NY.

    (a) Regulated areas. The regulations in this section apply to the
following areas:
    (1) Area ALPHA: All navigable waters of the East River, between the
east shore of Manhattan and the west shore of Roosevelt Island south of
the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 40[deg]45'31.46'' N, 73[deg]57'31.42'' W,
along the shore to 40[deg]45'6.80'' N, 73[deg]57'53.45'' W, east to
Roosevelt Island at 40[deg]44'59.42'' N, 73[deg]57'40.57'' W, along the
west shore of Roosevelt island to the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge at
40[deg]45'26.02'' N, 73[deg]57'19.15'' W, and back to the point of
origin.
    (2) Area BRAVO: All navigable waters of the East River, between the
west shore of Queens and the east shore of Roosevelt Island south of
the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 40[deg]45'22.89'' N, 73[deg]57'12.06'' W,
along the western shore of Roosevelt Island to 40[deg]44'59.42'' N,
73[deg]57'40.57'' W, east to 40[deg]44'52.25'' N, 73[deg]57'28.08'' W,
north along the west shore to the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge at
40[deg]45'18.82'' N, 73[deg]57'2.91'' W, and back to the point of
origin.
    (3) Area CHARLIE: All navigable waters of the East River
encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning at
40[deg]45'6.80'' N, 73[deg]57'53.45'' W, then south along the shore of
Manhattan to 40[deg]43'40.29'' N, 73[deg]58'18.37'' W, across the East
River to Brooklyn at 40[deg]43'39.68'' N, 73[deg]57'39.74'' W, then
north along the east shore of the East River to 40[deg]44'52.25'' N,
73[deg]57'28.08'' W including the navigable waters of Newtown Creek to
the Pulaski Bridge, back to the point of origin.
    (4) Area DELTA: All navigable waters of the East River encompassed
by a line connecting the following points beginning at
40[deg]43'40.29'' N, 73[deg]58'18.37'' W, then south along the shore of
Manhattan to 40[deg]43'06'' N, 073[deg]58'25'' W, across the East River
to Brooklyn at 40[deg]42'57.34'' N, 73[deg]58'3.03'' W, and north along
the shore of Brooklyn To 40[deg]42'15.87'' N, 73[deg]59'19.60'' W, then
along the shore of Brooklyn to 40[deg]42'57.34'' N, 73[deg]58'3.03'' W,
and then back to the point of origin.
    (5) Area ECHO: All navigable waters of the East River encompassed
by a line connecting the following points beginning at 40[deg]43'06''
N, 073[deg]58'25'' W, then along the shore to the Manhattan Bridge at
40[deg]42'34.74'' N, 73[deg]59'30.65'' W, across the East River to
Brooklyn at 40[deg]42'15.87'' N, 73[deg]59'19.60'' W, then along the
Brooklyn side of the East River to 40[deg]42'57.34'' N,
73[deg]58'3.03'' W, and then back to the point of origin. These
coordinates are based on (NAD 83).
    (6) Moving Protection Zone: A moving protection zone on all
navigable waters within a 50 yard radius of the participating barges
while they are

loaded with explosive material will be enforced from the point of
departure within the COTP New York zone until placement at the intended
destination. The point of departure will be determined each year prior
to enforcement of the moving protection zone and the details will be
released through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Designated Representative is any Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) New York in
the enforcement of this section.
    Official Patrol Vessel means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, Federal, State or local law enforcement vessel assigned or
approved by the COTP New York to assist in the enforcement of this
section.
    Spectator means a person or vessel not registered with the event
sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the special local
regulations in Sec.  100.35, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the limited access area defined in paragraph (a) of this
section, is prohibited, unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative.
    (2) All vessels that are authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative to enter the limited access areas established in this
section must adhere to the following restrictions:
    (i) Area ALPHA access is limited to vessels greater than or equal
to 20 meters (65.6ft) in length.
    (ii) Area BRAVO access is limited to vessels less than 20 meters
(65.6ft) in length.
    (iii) All vessels are prohibited from entering area CHARLIE without
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
    (iv) Area DELTA access is limited to vessels greater than or equal
to 20 meters (65.6ft) in length.
    (v) Area ECHO access is limited to vessels less than 20 meters
(65.6ft) in length.
    (vi) All vessels are prohibited from entering the moving protection
zone defined in paragraph (a)(6) of this section without permission
from the COTP or a designated representative.
    (vii) Vessels desiring to utilize any of these limited access areas
defined in paragraph (a) of this section must enter the area by 7:30
p.m.
    (3) During periods of enforcement all persons and vessels in the
limited access areas defined in paragraph (a) of this section must
comply with all lawful orders and directions from the COTP New York or
the COTP New York's designated representative.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within a limited
access area defined in paragraph (a) of this section should contact the
COTP New York at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF 16 to obtain permission.
    (5) Spectators or other vessels must not anchor, block, loiter or
impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in
the limited access area defined in paragraph (a) of this section during
the effective dates and times unless authorized by COTP New York or
designated representative.
    (6) The COTP or a representative will inform the public through
local notice to mariners and/or Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
enforcement period for the regulated area as well as any changes of the
enforcement times.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced annually on
July 4, from 5:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. In the event the fireworks display
is postponed due to inclement weather, this section will be enforced on
July 5, from 5:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.

    Dated: June 14, 2022.
M.R. Sennick,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2022-13175 Filed 6-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44307-44309]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In June 2012,
there were five applications approved. This notice also includes
information on two applications, approved in May 2012, inadvertently
left off the May 2012 notice. Additionally, six approved amendments to
previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: City of McAllen, Texas.
    Application Number: 11-05-C-00-MFE.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $19,145,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: December 1, 2026.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at McAllen-Miller International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Terminal building improvements.
Terminal area apron.
Shared use passenger processing system.
PFC application and administration fees.

    Brief Description of Disapproved Project:

Sterilizer and steam generator.

    Determination: Disapproved. This project does not meet the
requirements of Sec.  158.15(b).
    Decision Date: May 2, 2012.
    For Further Information Contact: Sarah Conner, Texas Airports
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Westchester, White Plains, New York.
    Application Number: 12-07-C-00-HPN.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $3,000,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Nonscheduled/
on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Westchester County Airport.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:

Replace two existing jet bridges and procure two additional jet
bridges.

    Decision Date: May 17, 2012.
    For Further Information Contact: Andrew Brooks, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Lancaster Airport Authority, Lititz, Pennsylvania.
    Application Number: 12-02-C-00-LNS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $3.00.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $110,174.
    Charge Effective Date: Not applicable.
    Charge Expiration Date: Not applicable.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Rehabilitate southeast general aviation apron, design.

Replace perimeter fence with security fence, design.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting building.
Extend runway--relocate road.

    Decision Date: June 6, 2012.
    For Further Information Contact: Lori Ledebohm, Harrisburg Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Wicomico, Salisbury, Maryland.
    Application Number: 12-04-C-00-SBY.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $937,983.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2017.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Part 135
carriers and foreign carriers.
    Determination: Disapproved. The proposed class totally more than 1
percent of the airport's annual enplanements.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Develop PFC application.
Rehabilitate air carrier terminal--phase 1.
Rehabilitate terminal vehicle access loop.

    Brief Description of Withdrawn Project:

Air traffic control tower rehabilitation.

    Date of Withdrawal: May 22, 2012.
    Decision Date: June 11, 2012.
    For Further Information Contact: Jeffrey Breeden, Washington
Airports District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Emmet, Petoskey, Michigan.
    Application Number: 12-12-C-00-PLN.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $481,281.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: September 1, 2021.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Snow removal equipment and aircraft rescue and firefighting facility.
New electrical vault.
Baggage claim vehicle doors.

    Decision Date: June 13, 2012.
    For Further Information Contact: Alex Erskine, Detroit Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Columbus Consolidated Government, Columbus, Georgia.
    Application Number: 12-05-C-00-CSG.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $601,216.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2012.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2015.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators operating at Columbus Metropolitan Airport (CSG).
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at CSG.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

PFC update.
Airport entrance road improvements.
Terminal building improvements.
Airfield security improvement.
Taxiway C relocation phase II--design and construction.
Airport communications upgrade.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment.

    Decision Date: June 20, 2012.
    For Further Information Contact: Anna Lynch, Atlanta Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Hailey and County of Blaine, Hailey, Idaho.
    Application Number: 12-08-C-00-SUN.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $527,500.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: January 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Friedman Memorial Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Acquire snow removal equipment.
Security improvements.
PFC administrative costs.

    Decision Date: June 25, 2012.
    For Further Information Contact: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original     Amended
                                      Amendment   Original approved  Amended  approved   estimated    estimated
     Amendment No., city, State        approved    net PFC revenue    net  PFC revenue  charge exp.  charge exp.
                                         date                                               date         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97-03-C-02-IYK, Inyokern, CA.......     05/30/12           $232,373           $257,452     03/01/03     03/01/03
09-10-C-02-FLL, Fort Lauderdale, FL     05/30/12        227,729,300        230,829,300     04/01/17     09/01/17
09-03-C-01-NYL, Yuma, AZ...........     06/01/12          1,251,361          1,371,361     07/01/18     03/01/19
97-05-C-02-CLE, Cleveland, OH......     06/06/12         41,844,570         36,187,509     11/01/99     05/01/00
09-11-C-01-SLC, Salt Lake City, UT.     06/15/12         68,334,400         75,162,900     06/01/11     08/01/11
09-04-C-02-ROW, Roswell, NM........     06/26/12            627,519          1,450,118     11/01/13     02/01/19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 18, 2012.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2012-18208 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36315-36316]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14903]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0356; FRL--9912-43-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Group I Polymers and Resins
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Group I Polymers and
Resins (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart U) (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 2410.03, OMB
Control No. 2060-0665), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through June 30, 2014, during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0356, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: EPA promulgated revisions for the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Group I Polymers
and Resins. Potential respondents subject to the new requirements of
the NESHAP include an estimated 5 existing facilities that produce
butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, ethylenepropylene rubber,
neoprene rubber, and nitrile butadiene rubber. The burden attributable
to this ICR consist of notification of front-end process vent limits,
notification of backend operation limits, recordkeeping related to the
new limits, and reports submitted to satisfy affirmative defense
provisions.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of facilities
that produce butyl rubber, epichlorohydrinelastomer, ethylene-propylene
rubber, neoprene rubber, and nitrile butadienerubber.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart U).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 315 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $16,791 (per year), includes no annualized
capital/startup nor any operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 64 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This is due to an adjustment, not due to any program
changes. The respondent burden increased because this ICR revised the
hours associated with affirmative defense, using latest estimates
provided by industry during consultation. The previous ICR covers the
burden associated with initial compliance of the final standard,
including one-time notification of performance tests and notifications
of the back-end process limits. This burden decreased because this ICR
assumes that existing facilities have already submitted initial
notifications and reports, and covers the burden associated with on-
going compliance.

Spencer Clark,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-14903 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 70391]
[DOCID:fr20no08-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-54C, SEC File No. 270-184, OMB Control No. 3235-0236.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (the ``Act''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Form N-54C (17 CFR 274.54) under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a) is a notification to the Commission that a company
withdraws its election to be regulated as a business development
company. Such a company only has to file a Form N-54C once.
    It is estimated that approximately 12 respondents per year file
with the Commission a Form N-54C. Form N-54C requires approximately 1
burden hour per response resulting from creating and filing the
information required by the Form. The total burden hours for Form N-54C
would be 12 hours per year in the aggregate. The estimated annual
burden of 12 hours represents a decrease of 6 hours over the prior
estimate of 18 hours. The decrease in burden hours is attributable to a
decrease in the number of respondents from 18 to 12.
    The estimate of average burden hours for Form N-54C is made solely
for the purposes of the Act and is not derived from a comprehensive or
even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules
and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the 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.
    Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 13, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27580 Filed 11-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 68876]
[DOCID:fr06de07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF08-5181-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

November 29, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 5, 2007, the Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Energy, pursuant to the authority vested in the Deputy
Secretary, by the Department of Energy's Delegation Order No. 00-
037.00, submitted for confirmation and approval on a final basis, Rate
Schedule L-F7, for firm electric service from the Loveland Area
Projects, effective January 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2012.
    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, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 28, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23626 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61180-61182]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2012-1085]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Christina River, Wilmington, DE

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that
governs the Walnut Street Bridge at mile 2.8, and the Market Street
Bridge at mile 3.0, both located on the Christina River in

Wilmington, DE. Originally it was also proposed that the Third Street
Drawbridge at mile 2.3 be included in this rule change but that request
was withdrawn. Since the two other drawbridges are located near one
another and the few vessels that do transit this waterway usually go
through all three bridges, the Walnut Street and Market Street bridges
will now open on the same eight hour advance notice. This rule will
change the current regulations by allowing the Third Street and Walnut
Street drawbridges to be opened in sequence with the same eight hour
advance notice presently given to the Market Street drawbridge. This
schedule clarifies the sequencing of these drawbridge openings, and
provides for the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: This rule is effective November 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
number USCG-2012-1085. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type
the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on
Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may
also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Terrance A. Knowles, Environmental Protection Specialist,
Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing, call
Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DELDOT Delaware Department of Transportation
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On January 24, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Christina River,
Wilmington, DE in the Federal Register (78 FR 5156). We received one
comment on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none
was held.

 B. Basis and Purpose

    The Delaware Department of Transportation (DELDOT) who owns and
operates these bascule-type drawbridges have requested a permanent
change to the existing bridge regulations, allowing the Walnut Street
bridge to also open on signal with eight hours advance notice as does
the Market Street Bridge. This schedule allows for both of the
drawbridges to be opened in sequence on the same opening request if
required. Vessel traffic on this part of the Christina River consists
of a few commercial and pleasure craft.
    Three vessels make-up 97% of the number of openings at these
bridges: The Kalmar Nyckel sail ship, the River Taxi, and the River
Boat Queen. The Market Street bridge has the most restrictive clearance
of the three (8 ft. vertical clearance), and was opened a total 578
times in 2011. In 2011 the Walnut Street Bridge was opened 244 times.
The River Taxi does not require an opening to pass under the Walnut
Street Bridge. The Third Street Bridge was opened 250 times, but it
will continue to open on signal.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The City of Wilmington Fire Department requested that the Third
Street Bridge continue to have a bridge tender to open it on signal
twenty-four hours per day, as it is currently regulated. The Fire Chief
wanted a bridge tender to be available to open all the bridges during
an emergency. DELDOT agreed with this proposal and now only Market
Street and Walnut Street Bridges will require 8 hours advance notice.
    The Coast Guard will not finalize the proposed change to the
operating schedule that governs the Third Street Drawbridge. Since the
two other drawbridges are located near one another and the few vessels
that do transit this waterway usually go through all three bridges, the
Walnut Street and Market Street bridges will now open on the same eight
hour advance notice.
    This rule changes the current regulations by allowing the Third
Street and Walnut Street drawbridges to be opened in sequence with the
same eight hour advance notice presently given to the Market Street
drawbridge.
    We are also modifying the existing regulations by removing the last
sentence in 33 CFR 117.237(c), ``The draws of these bridges shall open
at all times as soon as possible for passage of a public vessel of the
United States''. This sentence is being removed because it is redundant
and already exists in 33 CFR 117.31(b)(1).

 D. 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 or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The rule is expected to have minimal impact on mariners due to the
low number of vessels requiring openings on the river. In addition, the
fact that an 8-hour advance notice is presently required for the Market
Street Bridge opening, it is understood that time for passage through
all bridges, under the this rule, will be consistent with the current
regulation.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because only a few vessels transit
through both these bridges and it is rare that in such cases any vessel
stops between the bridges being regulated. Most commercial traffic will
leave and return during the day. This rule would possibly affect small
entities such as owners/operators of vessels needing to transit through
the bridges but requiring more than eight feet of vertical clearance
(the most vertically restrictive Market Street

Bridge). These vessels can minimize delays and plan their transits in
accordance with the opening schedule.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. The Christina River, Walnut Street and
Market Street bridges will only open with eight hours of advance
notice. This rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.237, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.237   Christina River.

* * * * *
    (c) In Wilmington DE, the draw of the Third Street Bridge at mile
2.3, shall open on signal, the draws of the Walnut Street Bridge at
mile 2.8, and the Market Street Bridge at mile 3.0, shall open on
signal if at least eight hours notice is given. From 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday except holidays,
the draws of these three bridges need not be opened for the passage of
vessels. Any vessel which has passed through one or more of these
bridges immediately prior to a closed period and which requires passage
through the other bridge or bridges in order to continue to its
destination shall be passed through the draw or draws of the bridge or
bridges without delay.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 18, 2013.
S.H. Ratti,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-24154 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65060-65061]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23373]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0744; FRL-10371-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the
Environment Under TSCA Section 8(e) (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the
following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act: Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury
to Health and the Environment under TSCA Section 8(e) (EPA ICR Number
0794.17 and OMB Control Number 2070-0046). This is a proposed extension
of the ICR which is currently approved through October 31, 2022. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on February
8, 2022 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 28,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2015-0744, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method). or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Sleasman, Regulatory Support
Branch (7101M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's dockets, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Under TSCA section 8(e), any person who manufactures
(defined by statute to include imports), processes, or distributes in
commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information
which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture
presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment is
required to immediately inform EPA of such information unless they have
actual knowledge that EPA has been adequately informed of such
information.
    EPA receives and screens TSCA section 8(e) submissions covering a
large number of chemical substances and mixtures on a wide range of
chemical toxicity/exposure information.

Although EPA's receipt of TSCA section 8(e) information does not
necessarily trigger immediate regulatory action under TSCA or other
authorities administered by EPA, all TSCA section 8(e) submissions
receive screening level evaluations by EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) to identify priorities for further Agency
action and appropriate referrals to other programs.
    In addition, EPA is offering an electronic reporting option for use
both by those who are required to submit a notification of substantial
risk under TSCA section 8(e) and by those who wish voluntarily to
submit ``For Your Information'' (FYI) notices by registering and
submitting information electronically using the Agency's Central Data
Exchange (CDX).
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected are
those that manufacture, process, import, or distribute in commerce
chemical substances and mixtures. The following North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist in determining whether this action might apply to certain
entities: Chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325) and petroleum and
coal product manufacturing (NAICS code 324).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, 15 U.S.C. 2607(e).
    Estimated number of respondents: 51 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 17,565 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,635,246 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 3,777 hours from
the ICR currently approved by OMB (from 21,412 to 17,635 hours). This
reflects an overall decrease in the number of 8(e) and FYI submissions,
which decreased from 408 to 343 for 8(e) submissions and from 13 to 6
for FYI submissions respectively.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-23373 Filed 10-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P