[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73698-73702]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29196]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0605; FRL-9903-84-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR99

Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers--Significant Impact Levels and Significant
Monitoring Concentration: Removal of Vacated Elements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 22, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) granted a request from the
EPA to vacate and remand to the EPA portions of two Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations, promulgated in 2010 under
the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), regarding the Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5). The Court further vacated the portions of the PSD
regulations establishing a PM2.5 Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC). The EPA is amending its regulations to remove the
vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from the PSD
regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This action is
exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking because it is ministerial in
nature. The EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking in the future
regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will address the Court's
remand.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0605. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (Air
Docket), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ben Garwood, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (C504-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number
(919) 541-5509, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this regulation apply to me?

    The entities potentially affected by this rule include new and
modified major stationary sources in all industry groups. To determine
whether your facility would be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 51.166 and
52.21. Entities potentially affected by this final action also include
state, local and tribal governments that issue PSD permits.

II. Background and Rationale for This Final Action

    The PSD permit program applies to any new major stationary source
or major modification at a stationary source located in a designated
attainment or unclassifiable area for any regulated NSR pollutant.\1\
The PSD

regulations require, among other things, compliance with emission
limitations achievable through installation of best achievable control
technology (BACT); an air quality analysis to show that the newly
constructed source or modification will not cause or contribute to a
violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or
applicable PSD increment,\2\ including analysis of air quality
monitoring data; an assessment of impacts on visibility and other
conditions in national parks and similar federal lands in certain
areas; an additional impacts analysis as defined by 40 CFR 51.166(o)
and 40 CFR 52.21(o); and an opportunity for public involvement. The EPA
regulations for the PSD program are contained in 40 CFR 51.166
(applicable to air agencies that issue permits under EPA-approved state
implementation plans (SIPs)) and 40 CFR 52.21 (the federal PSD program
applicable to permits issued by the EPA or by delegated air agencies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The PSD program stems from part C of title I of the CAA.
    \2\ An ``increment'' is the mechanism used in the PSD program to
define significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a
criteria pollutant. An increment is the maximum allowable increase
in ambient concentrations of a pollutant in an area relative to a
specified baseline concentration. In general, a change in ambient
pollutant concentrations greater than the amount defined by an
increment is thus considered to significantly deteriorate air
quality and cannot be allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, the EPA revised its NAAQS for particulate matter to
include standards for a new indicator, PM2.5, 62 FR 38652
(July 18, 1997). The EPA revised the PM2.5 NAAQS in 2006, 71
FR 61144 (October 17, 2006), and also in 2013, 78 FR 103086 (January
15, 2013). On October 20, 2010, the EPA published a final rule
establishing PSD provisions to implement increments, SILs and an SMC
for PM2.5. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC), 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). The SILs are
screening tools that have been applied in PSD permitting to demonstrate
that the proposed source's allowable emissions will not cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or increment (such demonstration
is required to obtain a permit). The SMC has been used to exempt
sources from a requirement in the CAA to collect preconstruction
monitoring data for up to 1 year before submitting a permit application
in order to help determine existing ambient air quality.
    On December 17, 2010, the Sierra Club petitioned the Court to
review the 2010 PM2.5 SILs and SMC final rule. On January
22, 2013, the Court granted a request from the EPA to vacate and remand
to the EPA portions of the PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and
52.21(k)(2)) establishing the SILs for PM2.5 so that the EPA
could reconcile the inconsistency between the regulatory text and
certain statements in the preamble to the 2010 final rule. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463-64 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court further
vacated the portions of the PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c)
and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)) establishing a PM2.5 SMC, finding
that the EPA lacked legal authority to adopt and use the
PM2.5 SMC to exempt permit applicants from the statutory
requirement to compile and submit ambient monitoring data. Id. at 468-
69.

III. Final Action

    This final action removes from the CFR the affected
PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions vacated by the Court's
decision. Because the Court specifically vacated and remanded the
PM2.5 SILs in sections 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2), the EPA
is removing the text and reserving the paragraphs in sections
51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2). The Court explicitly declined to vacate
the PM2.5 ``significance levels'' at section 51.165(b)(2),
and accordingly we are not taking any final action to make any change
to that section. The EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking in the
future regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will address the
remand.
    Moreover, because the Court vacated the SMC provisions in 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), the EPA is revising the
existing concentration for the PM2.5 SMC listed in sections
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per cubic
meter (0 [mu]g/m\3\). The EPA is not entirely removing PM2.5
as a listed pollutant in the SMC provisions because to do so might lead
to the issuance of permits that contradict the holding of the Court as
to the statutory monitoring requirements. Both sections
51.166(i)(5)(iii) and 52.21(i)(5)(iii) permit the reviewing authority
to exempt a permit applicant from the monitoring requirements if
``[t]he pollutant is not listed in paragraph (i)(5)(i) of this
section.'' Were EPA to completely remove PM2.5 from the list
of pollutants in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) of
the PSD regulations, PM2.5 would no longer be a listed
pollutant and the paragraph (iii) provision could be interpreted as
giving reviewing authorities the discretion to exempt permit applicants
from the requirement to conduct monitoring for PM2.5, in
contravention of the Court's decision and the CAA. Instead, the EPA is
revising the concentration listed in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to 0 [mu]g/m\3\. This means that there is no air
quality impact level below which a reviewing authority has the
discretion to exempt a source from the PM2.5 monitoring
requirements. By continuing to include PM2.5 as a pollutant
in the list contained in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i) and 52.21(i)(5)(i),
with the numerical value replaced with 0 [mu]g/m\3\, we avoid any
concern that paragraph (iii) of the two affected sections could be
applied to excuse permit applicants from adequately addressing the
monitoring requirement for PM2.5.
    The EPA is taking this action as a final rule without providing an
opportunity for public comment or a public hearing because the EPA
finds that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) good cause exemption
applies here. In general, the APA requires that general notice of
proposed rulemaking shall be published in the Federal Register. Such
notice must provide an opportunity for public participation in the
rulemaking process. However, the APA does provide an avenue for an
agency to directly issue a final rulemaking in certain specific
instances. This may occur, in particular, when an agency for good cause
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons in
the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. See 5
USC 553(b)(3)(B). The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to
provide a public hearing or an opportunity for public comment on this
action because the amendment of the regulations to remove the affected
provisions for the PM2.5 SILs and SMC is a necessary
ministerial act. As the Court vacated the PM2.5 SILs and SMC
provisions, the EPA no longer has the authority to allow the use of the
affected provisions after the Court's final decision. Therefore, in as
much as this action to remove the affected regulatory text simply
implements the decision of the Court, it would serve no useful purpose
to provide an opportunity for public comment or a public hearing on
this issue.
    In addition, notice and comment would be contrary to the public
interest because it would unnecessarily delay the removal of the
unlawful PM2.5 SIL and SMC provisions from the CFR, which
could result in confusion on the part of the regulated industry and
state, local and tribal air agencies about how the Court's decision
affects the PSD regulations and PSD permitting. Promulgation of this
rule soon after the Court's decision serves to clarify that

sources cannot continue to rely on the PSD PM2.5 SILs and
SMC as was previously allowed. Given the substantial costs to the
owner/operator of projects associated with delays and uncertainty, it
is in the public interest for the EPA to amend the CFR without delay.
    For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause to issue a final
rulemaking pursuant to section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Therefore, the requirements of CAA section 307(d), including the
requirement for public comment and hearing on proposed rulemakings, do
not apply to this action.

IV. Implementation

    The Court's vacatur of the PM2.5 SILs in 40 CFR
51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) and the SMC provisions in sections
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) means that these provisions
can no longer be relied upon by either permit applicants or permitting
authorities. The EPA has already stopped relying on sections
52.21(k)(2) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) of the federal PSD regulations when
we issue PSD permits. We have also advised state and local air agencies
to which we have delegated our authority to issue permits under the
federal PSD program (codified at section 52.21) not to rely on these
provisions. Permitting authorities with EPA-approved SIPs containing
any or all of the affected PM2.5 SIL and SMC provisions
previously allowed by sections 51.166(k)(2) and 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c)
should remove their corresponding SILs provisions and revise the
numerical value of the PM2.5 SMC to 0 [mu]g/m\3\ (or make
equivalent changes) as soon as feasible, which may be in conjunction
with the next otherwise planned SIP revision. Furthermore, the EPA
advises that these provisions as reflected in the existing state and
local EPA-approved SIPs are unlawful and may not be applied even prior
to their removal from the SIPs.
    The Agency has provided a question and answer document regarding
the implications of the Court's decision in various contexts (Guidance
on the Applicability of the January 22, 2013 Circuit Court Decision on
PM2.5 Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring
Concentration). This document is available on the agency's Web site
located at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved
the information collection requirements for the PSD program, including
the requirements addressed by this rule, under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0003.
    Pursuant to title I, part C, of the Act, the PSD program requires
the owner or operator to obtain a permit prior to either constructing a
new major stationary source or making a major modification to an
existing major stationary source. The information collection for
sources under PSD results from the requirement for owners or operators
to submit applications for NSR permits. For reviewing authorities, the
information collection results from the requirement to process permit
applications and issue permits, and to transmit associated information
to the EPA. The EPA oversees the PSD program, and the information
collected by sources and reviewing authorities is used to ensure that
the program is properly implemented.
    We anticipate that some sources currently in the permitting process
will no longer be able to apply the PM2.5 SMC to assert an
exemption from the statutory requirement to submit air quality
monitoring data as defined by CAA section 165(e)(2). The air quality
monitoring data required to be submitted by permit applicants is often
readily available as part of existing representative ambient air
quality data available for public review. We also anticipate that some
sources currently in the permitting process will no longer be able to
apply the PM2.5 SIL as an automatic ``safe harbor'' to
satisfy the statutory requirement to show that the proposed source will
not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or increment under
CAA section 165(a)(3). Some sources may be required to conduct a more
comprehensive air quality analysis in order to make the demonstration
required by the statute where, for example, background air quality is
close to the level of the NAAQS.
    Any burden anticipated as a result of this rule has already been
addressed in the analysis conducted for the final rule establishing PSD
provisions to implement increments, SILs and a SMC for
PM2.5. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC), 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). In that rule, over
the 3-year period covered by the ICR,\3\ we estimated an average annual
burden totaling about 29,000 hours and $2.8 million for all industry
entities that would be affected by the final rule. In addition, burden
was calculated for state and local agencies to revise their SIPs to
incorporate the changes. Over the 3-year period covered by the ICR for
the 2010 rule, we estimated that the average annual burden for all
State and local reviewing authorities will total about 7,500 hours and
$581,000. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The burden calculated
in the 2010 rule was a conservative estimate as the analysis assumed
that the same number of sources would collect and submit air quality
monitoring data and conduct a comprehensive air quality analysis
despite the promulgation of the PM2.5 SMC and SILs in that
rule. Therefore, the current rule does not add any further burden that
was not already anticipated and addressed by the previous 2010 rule and
ICR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Information Collection Required for Changes to 40 CFR parts
51 and 52: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant
Monitoring Concentration (SMC) June 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Today's good cause final rule is not subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements under the APA or any other statute. This rule is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other
statute

because although the rule is subject to the APA, the agency has invoked
the ``good cause'' exemption under 5 USC 553(b), and therefore it is
not subject to the notice-and-comment requirement.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This good cause
final action addresses the Court's vacatur of certain PSD regulations.

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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This good cause final action
addresses the Court's vacatur of certain PSD regulations. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This good cause final
action addresses the Court's vacatur of certain PSD regulations. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this good cause final rule will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on December 9, 2013.

VI. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
165-169 and 301 of the Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7475-7479 and 7601).

VII. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final
rule is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February
7, 2014. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are
the subject of this final rule may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations.

40 CFR Part 52

    Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations.

    Dated: November 26, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows.

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

0
2. Section 51.166 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the words ``4 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average,'' and adding
in their place ''0 [mu]g/m\3\'' in paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c).
0
b. By adding a note to paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraph (k)(2).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  51.166  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (c) Note to paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c): In accordance with Sierra Club
v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), no exemption is available with
regard to PM2.5.
* * * * *

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
3. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
4. Section 52.21 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the words ``4 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average,'' and adding
in their place ''0 [mu]g/m\3\'' in paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c).
0
b. By adding a note to paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraph (k)(2).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (c) Note to paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c): In accordance with Sierra Club
v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (DC Cir. 2013), no exemption is available with
regard to PM2.5.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-29196 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 48665-48666]
[DOCID:fr11au10-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2086-000]

Alta Wind I, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

August 4, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Alta Wind I, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability is August 24, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19776 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8473-8476]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03985]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2018-0004; FRL-9974-57-OECA]

Inquiry To Learn Whether Businesses Assert Business
Confidentiality Claims Regarding Waste Import and Export

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) occasionally
receives Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documentation
received or issued by EPA or data contained in EPA database systems
pertaining to the export and import of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste from/to the United States, the
export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs), the export and import of spent lead
acid batteries (SLABs) from the United States, and the export and
import of RCRA universal waste from/to the United States. The purpose
of this notice is to inform ``affected businesses'' about the documents
or data sought by these types of FOIA requests in order to provide the
businesses with the opportunity to assert claims that any of the
information sought that pertains to them is entitled to treatment as
confidential business information (CBI), and to send comments to EPA
supporting their claims for such treatment. ``Affected businesses'' are
businesses identified or referenced in the documents that were
submitted to EPA by the submitting business which may have a right to
assert a CBI claim concerning information that pertains to them and may
do so in response to this notice. Certain businesses, however, do not
meet the definition of ``affected business,'' and are not covered by
today's notice. They consist of any business that actually submitted to
EPA any document at issue pursuant to applicable RCRA regulatory
requirements and did not assert a CBI claim as to information that
pertains to that business in connection with the document at the time
of its submission; they have waived their right to do so at a later
time. This notice also serves to inform the public that based on the
Confidentiality Determinations for Hazardous Waste Export and Import
Documents, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0492, published on December 26, 2017
(Confidentiality Rule), this is the last time EPA will be publishing
the Federal Register Notice ``Inquiry to Learn Whether Businesses
Assert Business Confidentiality Claims.'' Effective June 26, 2018, the
Confidentiality Rule applies a confidentiality determination such that
no person can assert confidential business information (CBI) claims for
documents related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous
waste, including those hazardous waste managed under the alternate
standards, and excluded cathode ray tubes (CRTs). Therefore,
publication of this Federal Register notice will no longer be needed
since ``affected businesses'' will no longer be able to claim CBI on
any documents on which they are listed.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2018. The
period for submission of comments may be extended if, before the
comments are due, you make a request for an extension of the comment
period and it is approved by the EPA legal office. Except in
extraordinary circumstances, the EPA legal office will not approve such
an extension without the consent of any person whose request for
release of the information under the FOIA is pending.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2018-0004, by one of the following methods:
     Email: [email protected].
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Address: Eva Kreisler, International Compliance Assurance
Division, Office of Federal Activities, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2254A,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2018-0004. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Instructions about how to submit comments
claimed as CBI are given later in this notice.
    The http://www.regulations.gov site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment. Please include your name and
other contact information with any disk or CD-ROM you submit by mail.
If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ EPA Docket
Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the docket for this notice is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eva Kreisler, International Compliance
Assurance Division, Office of Federal Activities, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
2254A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today's notice relates to any documents or
data in the following areas: (1) Export of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste, during calendar year 2017 or
before, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H; (2) import of RCRA
hazardous waste, during calendar year 2017 or before, under 40 CFR part
262, subparts F and H; (3) transit of RCRA hazardous waste, during
calendar year 2017 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, through
the United States and foreign countries; (4) export of cathode ray
tubes, during calendar year 2017 or before, under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart E; (5) export and import of non-crushed spent lead acid
batteries with intact casings, during calendar year 2017 or before,
under 40 CFR part 266 subpart G; (6) export and import of RCRA
universal waste, during calendar year 2017 or before, under 40 CFR part
273, subparts B, C, D, and F; and (7) submissions from transporters,
during calendar year 2017 or before, under 40 CFR part 263, or from
treatment, storage or disposal facilities under 40 CFR parts 264 and
265, related to exports or imports of hazardous waste which occurred
during calendar year 2017 or before, including receiving facility
notices under 40 CFR 264.12(a)(1) and 265.12(a)(1) and import consent
documentation under 40 CFR 264.71(a)3) and 265.71(a)(3).

I. General Information

    EPA has previously published notices similar to this one in the
Federal Register, the latest one being at 82 FR 6506, January 19, 2017,
that address issues similar to those raised by today's notice. The
Agency did not receive any comments on the previous notices. Since the
publication of the January 19, 2017, Federal Register notice, the
Agency has continued to receive FOIA requests for documents and data
contained in EPA's database related to hazardous waste exports and
imports and exports of excluded CRTs.

II. Issues Covered by This Notice

    Specifically, EPA receives FOIA requests from time to time for
documentation or data related to hazardous waste exports and imports
that may identify or reference multiple parties, and that describe
transactions involving the movement of specified materials in which the
parties propose to participate or have participated. This notice
informs ``affected businesses,'' \1\ which could include, among others,
``transporters,'' \2\ and ``receiving facilities'' or ``foreign
receiving facilities,'' \3\ of the requests for information in EPA
database systems and/or contained in one or more of the following
documents: (1) Documents related to the export of Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste, during calendar year 2017 or
before, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, including but not
limited to the ``notification of intent to export,'' \4\ ``manifests,''
\5\ ``annual reports,'' \6\ ``EPA acknowledgements of consent,'' \7\
``any subsequent communication withdrawing a prior consent or
objection,'' \8\ ``responses that neither consent nor object,''
``exception reports,'' \9\ ``transit notifications,'' \10\ and
``renotifications''; \11\ (2) documents related to the import of
hazardous waste, during calendar year 2017 or before, under 40 CFR part
262, subparts F and H, including but not limited to notifications of
intent to import hazardous waste into the U.S. from foreign countries;
(3) documents related to the transit of hazardous waste, during
calendar year 2017 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H,
including notifications from U.S. exporters of intent to transit
through foreign countries, or notifications from foreign countries of
intent to transit through the

U.S.; (4) documents related to the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs),
during calendar year 2017 or before, under 40 CFR part 261, subpart E,
including but not limited to notifications of intent to export CRTs;
(5) documents related to the export or import of non-crushed spent lead
acid batteries (SLABs) with intact casings, during calendar year 2017
or before, under 40 CFR part 266 subpart G, including but not limited
to notifications of intent to export SLABs; (6) submissions from
transporters under 40 CFR part 263, or from treatment, storage or
disposal facilities under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, related to exports
or imports of hazardous waste which occurred during calendar year 2017
or before, including receiving facility notices under 40 CFR
264.12(a)(1) and 265.12(a)(1) and import consent documentation under 40
CFR 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3); and (7) documents related to the
export and import of RCRA ``universal waste'' \12\ under 40 CFR part
273, subparts B, C, D, and F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``affected business'' is defined at 40 CFR
2.201(d), and is set forth in this notice, below.
    \2\ The term ``transporter'' is defined at 40 CFR 260.10.
    \3\ The terms ``foreign receiving facility'' and ``receiving
facility'' are defined, for different purposes, at 40 CFR 262.81.
    \4\ The term ``notification for export'' is described at 40 CFR
262.83(b), and for import at 40 CFR 262.84(b).
    \5\ The term ``manifest'' is defined at 40 CFR 260.10.
    \6\ The term ``annual reports'' is described at 40 CFR
262.83(g).
    \7\ The term ``EPA Acknowledgement of Consent'' is defined at 40
CFR 262.81.
    \8\ The requirement to forward to the exporter ``any subsequent
communication withdrawing a prior consent or objection'' is found at
42 U.S.C. 6938(e)
    \9\ The term ``exception reports'' is described at 40 CFR
262.83(h).
    \10\ The term ``transit notifications'' is described at 40 CFR
262.83(b)(5).
    \11\ The term ``renotifications'' is described at 40 CFR
262.83(b)(4).
    \12\ The term ``universal waste'' is defined at 40 CFR 273.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain businesses, however, do not meet the definition of
``affected business,'' and are not covered by today's notice. They
consist of any business that actually submitted information responsive
to a FOIA request, under the authority of 40 CFR parts 260 through 266
and 268, and did not assert a claim of business confidentiality
covering any of that information at the time of submission. As set
forth in the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 260.2(b), ``if no such
[business confidentiality] claim accompanies the information when it is
received by EPA, it may be made available to the public without further
notice to the person submitting it.'' Thus, for purposes of this notice
and as a general matter under 40 CFR 260.2(b), a business that
submitted to EPA the documents at issue, pursuant to applicable
regulatory requirements, and that failed to assert a claim as to
information that pertains to it at the time of submission, cannot later
make a business confidentiality claim.\13\ Nevertheless, other
businesses identified or referenced in the same documents that were
submitted to EPA by the submitting business may have a right to assert
a CBI claim concerning information that pertains to them and may do so
in response to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ However, businesses having submitted information to EPA
relating to the export and import of RCRA universal waste are not
subject to 40 CFR 260.2(b) since they submitted information in
accordance with 40 CFR part 273, and not parts 260 through 266 and
268, as set forth in 40 CFR 260.2(b). They are therefore affected
businesses that could make a claim of CBI at the time of submission
or in response to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA may develop its own documents and organize into
its database systems information that was originally contained in
documents from submitting businesses relating to exports and imports of
hazardous waste. If a submitting business fails to assert a CBI claim
for the documents it submits to EPA at the time of submission, not only
does it waive its right to claim CBI for those documents, but it also
waives its right to claim CBI for information in EPA's documents or
databases that is based on or derived from the documents that were
originally submitted by that business.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ With the exception, noted above, of the submission of
information relating to the export and import of RCRA universal
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.204(c) and (e), this notice inquires
whether any affected business asserts a claim that any of the requested
information constitutes CBI, and affords such business an opportunity
to comment to EPA on the issue. This notice also informs affected
businesses that, if a claim is made, EPA would determine under 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B, whether any of the requested information is entitled
to business confidential treatment.

1. Affected Businesses

    EPA's FOIA regulations at 40 CFR 2.204(c)(1) require an EPA office
that is responsible for responding to a FOIA request for the release of
business information (``EPA office'') to determine which businesses, if
any, are affected businesses. ``Affected business'' is defined at 40
CFR 2.201(d) as: With reference to an item of business information, a
business which has asserted (and not waived or withdrawn) a business
confidentiality claim covering the information, or a business which
could be expected to make such a claim if it were aware that disclosure
of the information to the public was proposed.

2. The Purposes of This Notice

    This notice encompasses two distinct steps in the process of
communication with affected businesses prior to EPA's making a final
determination concerning the business confidentiality of the
information at issue: The preliminary inquiry and the notice of
opportunity to comment.
a. Inquiry To Learn Whether Affected Businesses (Other Than Those
Businesses That Previously Asserted a CBI Claim) Assert Claims Covering
Any of the Requested Information
    Section 2.204(c)(2)(i) provides, in relevant part: If the
examination conducted under paragraph (c)(1) of Sec.  2.204 discloses
the existence of any business which, although it has not asserted a
claim, might be expected to assert a claim if it knew EPA proposed to
disclose the information, the EPA office shall contact a responsible
official of each such business to learn whether the business asserts a
claim covering the information.
b. Notice of Opportunity To Submit Comments
    Sections 2.204(d)(1)(i) and 2.204(e)(1) of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations require that written notice be provided to
businesses that have made claims of business confidentiality for any of
the information at issue, stating that EPA is determining under 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B, whether the information is entitled to business
confidential treatment, and affording each business an opportunity to
comment as to the reasons why it believes that the information deserves
business confidential treatment.

3. The Use of Publication in the Federal Register

    Section 2.204(e)(1) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
requires that this type of notice be furnished by certified mail
(return receipt requested), by personal delivery, or by other means
which allows verification of the fact and date of receipt. EPA,
however, has determined that in the present circumstances the use of a
Federal Register notice is a practical and efficient way to contact
affected businesses and to furnish the notice of opportunity to submit
comments. The Agency's decision to follow this course was made in
recognition of the administrative difficulty and impracticality of
directly contacting potentially thousands of individual businesses.

4. Submission of Your Response in the English Language

    All responses to this notice must be in the English language.

5. The Effect of Failure To Respond to This Notice

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.204(e)(1) and 2.205(d)(1), EPA will
construe your failure to furnish timely comments in response to this
notice as a waiver of your business's claim(s) of business

confidentiality for any information in the types of documents
identified in this notice.

6. What To Include in Your Comments

    If you believe that any of the information contained in the types
of documents which are described in this notice and which are
currently, or may become, subject to FOIA requests, is entitled to
business confidential treatment, please specify which portions of the
information you consider business confidential. Information not
specifically identified as subject to a business confidentiality claim
may be disclosed to the requestor without further notice to you.
    For each item or class of information that you identify as being
subject to your claim, please answer the following questions, giving as
much detail as possible:
    1. For what period of time do you request that the information be
maintained as business confidential? Note that as of June 26, 2018 the
Confidentiality Rule takes effect applying confidentiality
determinations such that no CBI claims may be asserted by any person
with respect to any documents related to the export, import, and
transit of hazardous waste and export of excluded CRTs.
    2. Information submitted to EPA becomes stale over time. Why should
the information you claim as business confidential be protected for the
time period specified in your answer to question no. 1?
    3. What measures have you taken to protect the information claimed
as business confidential? Have you disclosed the information to anyone
other than a governmental body or someone who is bound by an agreement
not to disclose the information further? If so, why should the
information still be considered business confidential?
    4. Is the information contained in any publicly available material
such as the internet, publicly available data bases, promotional
publications, annual reports, or articles? Is there any means by which
a member of the public could obtain access to the information? Is the
information of a kind that you would customarily not release to the
public?
    5. Has any governmental body made a determination as to the
business confidentiality of the information? If so, please attach a
copy of the determination.
    6. For each category of information claimed as business
confidential, explain with specificity why and how release of the
information is likely to cause substantial harm to your competitive
position. Explain the specific nature of those harmful effects, why
they should be viewed as substantial, and the causal relationship
between disclosure and such harmful effects. How could your competitors
make use of this information to your detriment?
    7. Do you assert that the information is submitted on a voluntary
or a mandatory basis? Please explain the reason for your assertion. If
the business asserts that the information is voluntarily submitted
information, please explain whether and why disclosure of the
information would tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar
information in the future.
    8. Any other issue you deem relevant.
    Please note that you bear the burden of substantiating your
business confidentiality claim. Conclusory allegations will be given
little or no weight in the determination. If you wish to claim any of
the information in your response as business confidential, you must
mark the response ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' or with a similar
designation, and must bracket all text so claimed. Information so
designated will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed by, and
by means of, the procedures set forth in, 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. If
you fail to claim the information as business confidential, it may be
made available to the requestor without further notice to you.

III. Publication of the Confidentiality Determinations for Hazardous
Waste Export and Import Documents Final Rule and Its Effect on This
Notice

    The Confidentiality Determinations for Hazardous Waste Export and
Import Documents Final Rule, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0492, published on
December 26, 2017 (``Confidentiality Rule'') and effective on June 26,
2018, finalizes the application of confidentiality determinations such
that no CBI claims may be asserted by any person with respect to any
documents related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous waste
and export of excluded CRTs, including all documents listed in this
Notice in section II, above. Therefore, further publications of this
Federal Register Notice ``Inquiry to Learn Whether Businesses Assert
Business Confidentiality Claims'' will no longer be needed, after
today. Today's Notice is the last and final publication of this Notice.

IV. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Please submit this information by
mail to the address identified in the ADDRESSES section of today's
notice for inclusion in the non-public CBI docket. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to
the submission of one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

    Dated: February 12, 2018.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2018-03985 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11106-11108]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04083]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94297; File No. SR-NYSE-2022-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 1 To Replace References to Employees and Officers of
Intercontinental Exchange Group, Inc.

February 22, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on February 14, 2022, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 amend Rule 1 (``The Exchange'') to replace
references to employees and officers of Intercontinental Exchange
Group, Inc., the Exchange's indirect parent

company, with references to employees and officers of the Exchange. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1 (``The Exchange'') to replace
references to employees and officers of Intercontinental Exchange
Group, Inc. (``ICE''), the Exchange's indirect parent company, with
references to employees and officers of the Exchange.
    Prior to 2013, NYSE Euronext was the ultimate parent company of the
Exchange. At that time, Rule 1 referred to NYSE Euronext. In 2013, ICE
(then called IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc.) acquired NYSE
Euronext and its subsidiaries, including the Exchange.\4\ In connection
with the acquisition, references to NYSE Euronext in Rule 1 were
replaced wholesale with references to ICE.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70210 (August 15,
2013), 78 FR 51758 (August 21, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-42, SR-NYSEMKT-
2013-50, and SR-NYSEArca-2013-62) (order granting approval of
proposed rule change relating to a corporate transaction in which
NYSE Euronext will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of
IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc.). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 72158 (May 13, 2014), 79 FR 28784 (May 19, 2014)
(SR-NYSE-2014-23) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
proposed rule change relating to name changes of its ultimate
parent, IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc., and its indirect
parents, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. and NYSE Euronext Holdings
LLC).
    \5\ See Exhibit 5K to SR-NYSE-2013-42 (June 14, 2013), at 276-
278, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/rule-filings/filings/2013/NYSE-2013-42.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the changes, Rule 1 provides that, if the person
named in a rule is not available, the chief executive officer (``CEO'')
or chief regulatory officer (``CRO'') of the Exchange may designate one
or more qualified employees of ICE to act in their place. Rule 1 goes
on to state that, for purposes of a designation by the CEO, a qualified
employee includes, among other things, any officer of ICE deemed by the
CEO to possess the requisite knowledge and job qualifications.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In practice, designations under Rule 1 are limited to Exchange
employees and officers. To more accurately reflect actual practice, the
Exchange proposes to replace the references to employees and officers
of ICE in Rule 1 with references to employees and officers of the
Exchange, as follows:
     In the first sentence of the third paragraph,
``Intercontinental Exchange Group, Inc. (`ICE')'' would be replaced
with ``the Exchange''; and
     in clause (1) of the second sentence of the third
paragraph, ``Exchange'' would be added before ``officer,'' and ``of
ICE'' would be deleted.
    The proposed changes would not result in any practical changes
regarding which individuals would be eligible to perform the functions
specified in Rule 1 and would not require the Exchange to change which
individuals may currently performing these functions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote
clarity and transparency in its rules. The Exchange believes that the
change would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the
protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in
fact would benefit from the increased clarity and transparency that the
change would introduce, thereby reducing potential confusion.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest, because it would remove any potential confusion among
market participants that may result if the Exchange retained references
to ICE employees and ICE officers in Rule 1, adding clarity and
transparency to Exchange rules. Moreover, the proposed change to the
first prong of the definition of ``qualified employee'' for purposes of
designation by the CEO would make it consistent with the first prong of
the definition of ``qualified employee'' for purposes of designation by
the CRO, reducing any potential confusion among market participants.
    In practice, Exchange employees and officers, and not ICE employees
and officers, are designated pursuant to Rule 1. The proposed changes
would ensure that remained true, as under the changes only Exchange
officers or Exchange employees could be qualified employees delegated
authority by the CEO pursuant to Rule 1. For that reason, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\9\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any
competitive issue but rather serve to promote clarity and consistency,
thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor
protection. The proposed changes would be administrative and would
apply only to the Exchange, and therefore would not impose any
unnecessary competitive burden on third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \11\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2022-09 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-NYSE-2022-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2022-09 and should be submitted on
or before March 21, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04083 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41829-41831]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No: PHMSA-2013-0003]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities, Revision to
Annual Report for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A Federal Register
notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
information collection was published on February 6, 2013, (78 FR 8699).
    PHMSA received one comment in response to that notice. PHMSA is
publishing this notice to respond to the comment, provide the public
with an additional 30 days to comment on the proposed revisions to the
forms and the instructions, and announce that the revised information
collections will be submitted to OMB for approval.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 12, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Keener by telephone at 202-366-
0970, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2013-0003 by any of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-395-5806.
     Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
Records Management Center, Room 10102 NEOB, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer for the U.S. Department of
Transportation\PHMSA.
     Email: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
at the following email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Requests for a copy of the Information Collection should be
directed to Angela Dow by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at 202-366-
4566, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8 (d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies a revised
information collection request that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for
approval. The information collected from hazardous liquid operators'
annual reports is an important tool for identifying safety trends in
the hazardous liquid pipeline industry.

Summary of Topic Comments/Responses

    During the two-month response period, PHMSA received one joint
comment from the following stakeholders:
     American Petroleum Institute (API)
     Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL)
    This 30-day notice responds to the comments, which may be found at
http://www.regulations.gov, at docket number PHMSA-2013-0003.
    The following is a summary of the joint comments to PHMSA regarding
the proposed changes to the Hazardous Liquid Operator Annual Report.
Most of the comments are in reference to the reporting of Parts D and E
information on a by-state basis.

A. By-State Reporting for Parts D and E

    Comment: API and AOPL commented that state-by-state reporting for
parts D and E will not enhance pipeline safety or provide meaningful
data, and that data collection will impose more burden on operators
than PHMSA estimated. They point out that ``although the notice states
that state-by-state information is ``essential for PHMSA's response to
state regulators, Congress, state officials, and the public following
pipeline incidents,'' the notice fails to explain how the data will be
used to quantify risk or advance pipeline safety. PHMSA already
receives the data on a total system basis, which is consistent with
PHMSA's regulatory approach of overseeing the safety of the interstate
liquids pipeline network overall, not on a state-by-state basis.
    PHMSA's Response: PHMSA is responsible for safety oversight of both
interstate and intrastate pipeline systems. For those states that are
certified, the state pipeline safety agency provides oversight and
enforcement on pipeline facilities within that state. PHMSA funds up to
80 percent of costs for state pipeline safety programs. By-state
reporting will increase PHMSA's ability to oversee state pipeline
regulatory activities. Without by-state reporting for the proposed
information, PHMSA is unable to respond to elementary questions from
State Governors, Senators, Congressmen, and the media, who frequently
ask for such information especially following significant accidents
within their state. Safety analysis is a large part of PHMSA's mission,
but responding to information needs from stakeholders is also critical
to the mission. By-state information can also help track overall
improvements in pipe inventory at a state level, which aides in
understanding national improvement trends. For example, cast iron
replacement became a special concern for the Secretary of
Transportation and others after an accident involving cast iron pipe in
Pennsylvania in 2011. PHMSA is able to track by-state replacement rates
for such pipe because that information is available on a by-state
basis. PHMSA also believes that the increasing use of Geographic
Information System (GIS) tools by industry makes it increasingly easier
for operators to provide such information.

    Comment: According to API and AOPL, ``The notice's regulatory
impact analysis underestimates the burden of the revisions upon
pipeline operators. PHMSA believes that most of the regulated hazardous
liquid pipeline industry already collects this information on a by-
state basis so the burden for providing it would be minimal. The notice
incorrectly characterizes the nature of the information currently
collected by the industry and seeks a level of reporting granularity
that imposes significant burdens. The industry does not collect this
information, but rather, it collects total intrastate mileage through
its Pipeline Performance Tracking System (PPTS), a reporting system
where industry members voluntarily report release data in an effort to
understand and improve industry performance.''
    PHMSA's Response: The annual report currently collects data about
the size, age, pressure range, and high consequence area status on both
a by-state and by-commodity basis. Fifty-six percent of operators in
the calendar year 2011 data set reported in only one state. There will
be no additional burden for these operators. For the 44 percent of
operators reporting in more than one state, PHMSA expects that the
additional data proposed for collection is already integrated with
information systems containing the data currently reported on both a
by-state and by-commodity basis. However, PHMSA acknowledges that
operators without GIS capability would have added burden in computing
by-state totals. PHMSA has modified the burden estimate to reflect that
some operators will incur costs to extract the requested data.
    Comment: The proposal requires the intrastate data be broken down
additionally into a complex matrix that would categorize state pipeline
mileage by material type, corrosion prevention status, and location
onshore or offshore. Consequently, the notice would compel operators to
further collect and sort the information into smaller subcategories.
Compiling, mining, and assessing the data in the complex matrices that
the notice proposes is not a trivial exercise. API and AOPL would not
characterize this burden as minimal. Moreover, the burden estimates
included in the notice do not consider the costs required by operators
to modify their existing geospatial technological architecture to
incorporate these changes. In general, API and AOPL members manage
their data networks on a system-wide foundation, not a state-wide
foundation. Consequently, operators are not able to easily access the
information that would be collected and would need to modify their
systems to access this data more readily. In fact, during the report's
last revision, which occurred only a few years ago, operators incurred
noteworthy modification costs to upgrade their geospatial architecture.
Those operators that are unable to upgrade current systems will be
relegated to manually mining the data for this information, expending
significant time and human resources not fully recognized in the
notice's burden estimate.
    PHMSA's Response: PHMSA's understanding is that it is already
common practice to integrate the proposed data with the information
systems containing the data that is currently reported. PHMSA believes
that by way of these information systems, the proposed data could be
easily extracted on both a by-state and by-commodity basis.
Nonetheless, PHMSA has modified the burden estimate to reflect that
some operators will incur costs to extract the requested data.
    Regarding the comment about intrastate filing difficulty, based on
conversation with industry, PHMSA expects most, if not all, hazardous
liquid pipeline companies contain primary information regarding their
enterprise in a GIS, and as such, the information requested should be
readily available by state. PHMSA believes that the information
proposed for by-state collection can be obtained or derived from any
GIS system with state boundary data that is free to the public. PHMSA
can also provide state boundary data information on request. Also,
queries to calculate a by-state basis should be trivial if the
information is within a GIS system, on a system-wide basis, or
otherwise at a national level.

B. Online Reporting Enhancements

    Comment: If PHMSA nonetheless proceeds with the revisions, API and
AOPL request that PHMSA incorporate several changes to its navigation
of the online report. Specifically, the report's instructions indicate
that Parts N and O are to be completed after Parts P and Q. The
proposed revisions would also require operators to complete Part L
prior to Part F. Since these changes would require operators to
complete the report out of sequence, API and AOPL request that PHMSA
provide a notification in the electronic report, in addition to changes
in the instructions that would direct operators to bypass the
respective Parts. API and AOPL also request that PHMSA provide
corresponding navigation that will permit operators to freely move
between the related Parts on the report. Such revisions will facilitate
accurate and quality data collection.
    PHMSA's Response: The on-line navigation will allow the users to
move freely among the Parts of the form. If an operator attempts to
enter Part F or G data before the prerequisite entries have been made
in Part L, the online system will explain why data entry is not yet
permitted.
    Comment: Time Stamp Requested: API and AOPL note that there is
currently no confirmation of the date and time that an initial or
supplemental Annual Report has been submitted. Confirmation would
certify that the operator has successfully submitted the report, and
will verify those viewing a hard copy have the most recent version of
the report. In fact, PHMSA inspectors request this information during
inspections. API and AOPL request that PHMSA supply confirmation upon
submittal of any report.
    PHMSA's Response: PHMSA is implementing the date confirmation
suggested by API and AOPL. In the Summary section of the PHMSA Portal,
operators have access to all original and supplemental reports.

C. Improved Instructions

    Comment: Reporting of actionable anomalies removed due to pipe
replacement or abandonment: To streamline operator reporting in this
section of the report, API and AOPL request that the report's
instructions include examples of how to calculate reportable anomalies
for any repair. API and AOPL believe the following are suitable
examples of such guidance:

    Example 1.  An area on the pipe has three actionable anomalies
in the same general area, per the assessment data. If an operator
excavates this area and installs a repair sleeve over these three
actionable anomalies as well as 20 smaller anomalies, the total
reported number of actionable anomalies for this repair should equal
three.
    Example 2.  An area on the pipe has three actionable anomalies
in the same general area, per the assessment data. Upon ditch
investigation, if there are four anomalies that meet the actionable
definitions (if, for instance, the ILI tool missed one anomaly) as
well as several smaller anomalies, the reported number of actionable
anomalies should equal four.
    Example 3.  An area on the pipe has three actionable anomalies
in the same general area, per the assessment data. If upon in the
ditch investigation it is discovered that only one of the anomalies
is actionable, the reported number should be one.
    Example 4.  An area on the pipe has three actionable anomalies
in the same general area per the assessment data. The operator
elects to do a pipe replacement or abandonment without a ditch
investigation. The reported

number of actionable anomalies should equal three per the assessment
data.

    The definition for the term repair presents another example of
where modest changes to the instructions will improve the understanding
of those entering the data as well as the quality of the data.
Specifically, API and AOPL request that PHMSA adopt the term ``repair''
as included in the PPTS Advisory Bulletin: Reporting Integrity
Management Program Activity in the Infrastructure Survey (2004), which
defines ``repair'' as ``a mechanical fix of some kind--a sleeve or
clamp, for instance--that restores the pressure- containing capability
of the pipe.'' A pipe repair can include the installation of pressure
containing sleeves or non-pressure containing sleeves, replacement of a
weld or welding to fill in an anomaly, and removal of stress
concentrators through grinding. A repair should not include touching-
up, re-establishing or replacing coating. A ``replacement'' on the
other hand, is a type of repair.
    PHMSA's Response: API's and AOPL's suggestion regarding
instructions for reporting repairs is already partially implemented in
PHMSA's proposed changes. For example, the instructions clearly state
that recoating is not considered a repair. However, the suggestion that
replacement be treated as a type of repair directly conflicts with
PHMSA's proposal to collect actionable anomalies eliminated by pipe
abandonment or replacement. PHMSA will proceed with collecting
replacement data separately from repair data.
    Comment: High Consequence Area Mileage: API and AOPL request that
PHMSA clarify the instructions on page 11 of the ``60 day Version'' of
the Report's General Instructions. Page 11 instructs operators that,
``Part F includes inspection, assessment, and repair data both within
and outside HCAs.'' Although the instructions in Part F later detail
section-by-section how to report mileage, AOPL and API request that
PHMSA include a notation on this page noting that, ``where 49 CFR
195.452 is cited, only `could affect' HCA mileage should be reported,''
to avoid potential confusion.
    PHMSA's Response: PHMSA has modified page 11 of the instructions to
clarify that ``in HCA'' means ``on pipeline segments that could affect
an HCA.''
    The following information is provided for each information
collection:
    (1) Abstract for the affected annual report form; (2) title of the
information collection; (3) OMB control number; (4) affected annual
report form; (5) description of affected public; (6) estimate of total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (7) frequency of
collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for each
information collection activity and, when approved by OMB, publish a
notice of the approval in the Federal Register.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
    Title: Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline:
Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0614.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2014.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Abstract: To ensure adequate public protection from exposure to
potential hazardous liquid pipeline failures, PHMSA collects
information on reportable hazardous liquid pipeline accidents.
Additional information is also obtained concerning the characteristics
of an operator's pipeline system on the Annual Report for Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Systems form (PHMSA F 7000-1.1). This information is
needed for normalizing the accident information to provide for adequate
safety trending. The form is required to be filed annually by June 15
of each year for the preceding calendar year.
    Affected Public: Hazardous liquid pipeline operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 447.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,063 (8,046 + 17).
    Frequency of collection: Annually.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the proposed collection of information 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
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 2013.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-16606 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50260-50262]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0901]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Willamette River between the Tilikum Crossing
and Marquam bridges in Portland, OR. This safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during a
fireworks display on October 27, 2018. This regulation prohibits
persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6:40 p.m. to 9 p.m. on October 27,
2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0901 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 LCDR Dixon Whitley, Waterways Management Division, Marine
Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society will be conducting a fireworks
display from 7:40 p.m. to 8 p.m. on October 27, 2018. The fireworks are
to be launched from a barge in the Willamette River between the Tilikum
Crossing and Marquam bridges in Portland, OR. Hazards from firework
displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous
projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the
Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the fireworks to be used in this display will be a
safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of the barge.
    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 would be impracticable to complete
a notice-and-comment rulemaking by the date of the fireworks display,
October 27, 2018.
    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 because an enforcement regulation is
needed on October 27, 2018, 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 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on October 27,
2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of
launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters from these potential hazards
within the safety zone before, during and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 6:40 p.m. until 9 p.m. on
October 27, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within 450 yards of the barge being used to launch the fireworks
display from position 45[deg]30'23.00'' N, 122[deg]40'4.71'' W, on the
Willamette River in Portland, OR. The duration of the zone is intended
to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before,
during, and after the scheduled 7:40 p.m. to 8 p.m. 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not

been designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is
exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the Willamette River for less than
2.5 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low.
Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to
seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

    This rule 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 safety zone lasting approximately 2.5 hours that will prohibit entry
within 450 yards of a fireworks barge. 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. 01. A Record of
Environmental Consideration 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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0901 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0901  Safety Zone; Willamette River, Portland, OR.

    (a) Safety zone. The following area is a safety zone: Waters of the
Willamette River between the Tilikum and Marquam bridges, within a 450-
yard radius of the fireworks barge located at 45[deg]30'23.00'' N,
122[deg]40'4.71'' W in Portland, OR.
    (b) Regulations. Under Sec.  165.23, no person may enter or remain
in the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or his designated
representative. Also, under Sec.  165.23, no person may bring into, or
allow to remain in this safety zone any vehicle, vessel, or object
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port

Columbia River or his designated representative.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6:40
p.m. to 9 p.m. on October 27, 2018.

    Dated: September 19, 2018.
D.F. Berliner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2018-21759 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P