                             Response to Comments
Introduction
This document, together with the preamble to the final rule titled Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Grain Sorghum Oil Pathway, contains EPA's response to all significant comments for the final rule. This document includes responses to two sets of comments:
 Comments on the definition of corn oil extraction proposed in the November 16, 2016 Renewable Enhancement and Growth Support proposed rule (the "November 2016 REGS proposed rule") (81 FR 80828)
 Comments received in response to the December 27, 2017 Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Grain Sorghum Oil Pathway proposed rule (the "December 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule") (82 FR 61205)
We received 21 comments on the December 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule. Of these, 16 comments supported the rulemaking. Two of the comments raised concerns about EPA's evaluation of the livestock sector impacts, one of these comments requested additional analysis of environmental impacts from the production of distillers sorghum oil, and the other three comments did not discuss the proposed pathways for distillers sorghum oil.
We received 17 comments on the November 2016 REGS proposed rule that addressed the proposed changes to the definition of corn oil extraction. Four of the comments supported the revisions. Seven of the commenters supported the proposed definition and recommended revisions. None of the comments opposed the proposed definitional changes, but six of the comments said that EPA's proposed definition was too restrictive, because it did not include corn oil from wet milling and/or fractionation.
Due to overlap in the topics addressed in the comments on the two proposed rules, for flow and readability, the comments and responses below are organized by topic, not by the proposed rule they addressed.
Summary and Analysis of Comments
Definition of corn oil
Comment: One commenter on the November 2016 REGS proposed rule recommended using the term "distillers corn oil" as that term is better understood in the industry, and USDA reporting, to reference corn oil from dry mills (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0282).
Response: Based on this comment, we are using the term distillers corn oil in the regulations at 40 CFR 80.1401, because it is better understood in the industry and thus enhances the clarity of the regulations. For example, the USDA National Daily Ethanol Report uses the term "Distillers corn oil" and says "Distillers corn oil is intended for animal feed or biofuel and is not Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS) for human consumption. It may also be referred to as inedible crude corn oil or crude corn oil."
Comment: Four commenters on the November 2016 REGS proposed rule supported EPA's proposed revision to the definition of corn oil extraction (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0231, 0296, 0307, 0313). They said the proposed changes were needed to update the definition based on technological changes in the industry, and to provide a level playing field for new oil extraction methods.
Response: Based on these comments, EPA believes it is appropriate to update our treatment of the feedstock previously listed as "non-food grade corn oil" in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426. In this rule, we are changing references to "non-food grade corn oil" to "distillers corn oil" in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, and we are adding a new definition for "distillers corn oil" in 40 CFR 80.1401. These changes accomplish the goals supported by the commenters. These changes are discussed in section IV of the preamble.
Comment: Four comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0034, 0039, 0028, 0038) on the December 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule supported finalizing an expanded definition of non-food grade corn oil in the distillers sorghum oil rulemaking.
Response: Based on these comments, EPA believes it is appropriate, in this rule, to replace references to non-food grade corn oil with distillers corn oil and finalize a new definition for distillers corn oil. See section IV of the preamble.
Commingling of grain sorghum oil and non-food grade corn oil
Comment: Three commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0039, 0038, 0028) on the December 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule asked EPA to clarify that a mix of non-food grade corn oil and grain sorghum oil could be considered an acceptable feedstock for RIN-generating renewable fuels.
Response: In response to these comments, EPA provides clarification about the use of commingled sorghum and corn oil within the Renewable Fuel Standard in section III.A of the preamble and adds commingled distillers corn and sorghum oil to rows F and H of Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426.
Human food use
Comment: One commenter on the 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0039) asked for clarification that the phrase, "rendered unfit for food uses..." in the definitions of corn and sorghum oil means unfit for human food uses, not animal (feed) uses, and requested that EPA insert the term "human" immediately before the term "food," so that the new definition reads "... rendered unfit for human food uses..."
Two commenters on the November 2016 REGS proposed rule requested that EPA clarify the proposed definition of corn oil extraction by stating that "the oil is rendered unfit for human food uses without further refining" (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0266 and 0277).
Response: Based on these comments, we are revising the proposed definition to say, "the oil is unfit for human food use without further refining." This approach is intended to clarify that the oil is unfit for human food use (but may be fit for animal consumption). We also believe that removing the word "rendered" removes potential confusion about how to interpret the definition. The term "rendered" in this specific context could be misconstrued as meaning that, for the oil to qualify, someone had to purposely alter the corn oil with the intent of making it unfit for human food use. In actuality, the corn oil is left unfit for human food uses as a result of corn processing decisions that are most often not primarily motivated by how they will affect the oil contained in the corn.  See section III.A of the preamble.
Comment: One commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0039) on the 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule also recommended that based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance EPA modify the term "non-food grade corn oil" in pathways F and H in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 to "Non-human food grade corn oil."
Response: After consulting with the FDA, we do not believe that altering the definition is appropriate for two reasons. First, the proposed terminology would not align with the terminology covered in the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) 33.2 for "corn oil" and thereby cause confusion for the biofuel industry. Second, altering the definition in this manner could lead to a feed- grade product and a potentially lesser grade product with an unknown composition to enter into the feed market to which the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine Compliance office expressed concern. Therefore, we are not altering the name of the feedstock to "non-human food grade corn oil." Instead, we are using the term "distillers corn oil" and defined it to include only corn oil "unfit for human food use without further refining."
Comment: Three commenters on the November 2016 REGS proposed rule stated that the phrase "oil is rendered unfit" is unnecessary since all corn oil obtained from extraction is unfit for food uses (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0282, 0300 and 0311).
Response: We believe it is appropriate to include the phrase "oil is unfit" in the definitions of distillers corn oil and sorghum oil. Our original proposal to revise the definition of corn oil extraction was based on technological changes within the industry, and there may be additional changes in the future that could result in the ability to extract food-grade oil downstream of when corn or grain sorghum is ground at a dry mill plant. In this case, we believe a separate evaluation would be required for fuel produced from such oil, because the GHG emission associated of diverting oil used for human food consumption to biofuel production may be substantially different than the GHG emissions associated with using oil that is unfit for human food consumption.
Including extraction at butanol and other non-ethanol production facilities
Comment: Four commenters on the 2016 REGS proposed rule said that EPA should expand the definition of corn oil extraction even further to include corn oil recovered at butanol plants, because the dry mill process for butanol is very similar to those for dry mill ethanol with respect to conversion of corn to liquefied mash and recovery of distillers grains and thin stillage (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0243, 0246, 0267, 0286).
Response: Based on these comments, we believe it is appropriate for distillers corn oil to include corn oil extracted at any point downstream of when a dry mill butanol plant grinds the corn, provided the corn is converted to butanol. We believe it is appropriate to include dry mill butanol plants based on their similarity with dry mill ethanol plants.
For purposes of evaluating the livestock sector impacts associated with corn oil extracted from DGS generated from corn butanol production ("corn butanol DGS"), the key factor to consider is how corn butanol DGS compare to corn ethanol DGS. Based on available information, we have found no reason to believe that extracting oil from corn butanol DGS would result in significantly different livestock sector impacts than extraction oil from corn ethanol DGS.
Corn ethanol and butanol are both produced through fermentation of corn starch glucose, with the rest of the corn kernel ending up in the DGS co-product. On average, corn ethanol and butanol are expected to have similar fuel yields on a volumetric basis, and DGS yields on a mass basis. The March 2010 RFS rule and 2016 Gevo petition determination both assumed that one bushel of corn produced 2.71 gallons of ethanol or butanol and 17 pounds of DGS.
Although there is limited data comparing the nutritional value of DGS produced from corn ethanol and corn butanol production, available information indicates they are very similar. A 2007 lifecycle assessment of corn-based butanol conducted by Argonne National Laboratory, which formed the basis for the butanol analysis in the GREET model, found that dried DGS (DDGS) generated from corn butanol production has similar protein by weight as DDGS generated from corn ethanol production, and assumed similar overall nutritional value per pound. More recently, a July 2015 petition from Gevo Inc., submitted to EPA under claims of Confidential Business Information (CBI), supports the conclusion that corn butanol DGS would meet the same industry standard specifications as corn ethanol DGS, and thus could be marketed as the same product.
The available information, summarized above, supports the inclusion of oil extracted from corn butanol DGS in the definition of distillers corn oil at 40 CFR 80.1401. Commenters did not provide any information or data that would support a different finding.
Comment: One commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0039) on the 2016 REGS proposed rule requested that the definition of distillers sorghum oil be expanded to include the oil recovered from grain sorghum that is converted to butanol.
Response: Based on these comments, we believe it is appropriate for the definition of distillers sorghum oil at 40 CFR 80.1401 to include oil recovered from grain sorghum converted to butanol. Explained above are our reasons for including oil extracted from corn butanol DGS. While data on sorghum butanol is extremely limited, for the same reasons described above for why corn butanol and ethanol DGS are expected to be compositionally similar, sorghum butanol and ethanol DGS are also likely to be compositionally similar. Significant aspects of our distillers sorghum oil evaluation are based on extension of data from the corn ethanol industry. We believe it is also appropriate to extend our comparison of corn ethanol and butanol DGS, described above, to grain sorghum butanol and ethanol DGS. As in the case of corn, grain sorghum butanol and ethanol are both produced through fermentation of grain sorghum glucose, with the rest of the grain sorghum ending up in the DGS co-product. The 2015 petition submitted by Gevo under claims of CBI pertained to both corn starch and grain sorghum feedstock, and supported the conclusion that grain sorghum butanol DGS would meet the same industry standards as grain sorghum ethanol DGS, and thus could be marketed as the same product. The available information, summarized above, supports our inclusion of oil extracted from grain sorghum butanol DGS. Commenters did not provide any information or data that would support a different finding.
Comment: Two comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0039 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0267) on the 2016 REGS proposed rule and the 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule requested that the definitions of distillers corn oil and distillers sorghum oil be expanded to include oil recovered from corn or grain sorghum that is converted to any renewable fuel (not limited to ethanol or butanol).
Response: We do not believe it is appropriate, at this time, to include oil recovered from corn or grain sorghum converted to any renewable fuel (not restricted to ethanol or butanol). EPA does not have information about what other types of fuel production facilities may extract corn or grain sorghum oil that is not suitable for human consumption. Without information about the types of renewable fuel or coproducts produced from prospective facilities using the corn or grain sorghum feedstock, we are not able to assess the GHG impacts that may be associated with such oil extraction. We believe that oil that fits this description would be more properly evaluated through the petition process at 40 CFR 80.1416, because in that case we would receive the data needed to complete a lifecycle GHG analysis of the requested pathways.
Oil extracted at wet mills or by fractionation
Comment: Five commenters on the 2016 REGS proposed rule suggested that EPA should expand the definition of corn oil extraction to include corn oil from wet milling. These commenters stated that all corn oil meets the requirements of the RFS program and thus should be eligible feedstocks under the program.
Response: We do not believe it is appropriate to include corn oil from wet mills in this rulemaking, as such oil is commonly marketed for human food consumption. See preamble section IV for more discussion.
Comment: Four commenters on the 2016 REGS proposed rule requested that EPA expand the definition of corn oil extraction to include corn oil extracted after corn fractionation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0278, 0282, 0300 and 0311). These commenters stated that the fractionation process can be set up at a dry grind ethanol plant and the resulting extracted corn oil will still meet all the requirements for corn oil extraction.
Response: We do not believe it is appropriate to include corn oil recovered through fractionation in this rulemaking, as such oil is commonly extracted for sale as a product for human food consumption. See preamble section IV for our response.
Oil recovered by a third party
Comment: One commenter on the 2016 REGS proposed rule requested that EPA clarify the proposed definition of corn oil extraction to state that the distillers grains resulting from the dry mill operation that must be marketable as animal feed include those that have been subjected to further oil recovery by a dry mill or third party (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0260).
Response: EPA does not believe any revisions are needed to clarify this point. The proposed and final definitions say that the oil may be extracted "at any point downstream of when a dry mill ethanol plant grinds the corn...." We believe "at any point downstream" is sufficiently clear and includes extraction by either a dry mill or a third party, and it would not be helpful to add examples or further text in the regulations to clarify this point. The REGS proposed rule preamble elaborated on how we interpret this part of the definition: "Further, it would also include recovery of corn oil by a third-party from DGS produced by a dry mill corn ethanol plant" (81 FR 80900). That interpretation also applies to the definition of distillers corn oil finalized in this rule.
Comment: Three commenters on the 2016 REGS proposed rule stated that EPA's proposed addition of the phrase "at any point downstream" is inconsistent with its proposed approach for biointermediates and should be clarified (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0282, 0300 and 0311).
Response: We do not believe further clarification is needed in this rule. Based on paragraph (5) of the biointermediates definition in the 2016 REGS proposed rule, a biointermediate would be a feedstock material that is "substantially altered from the feedstock listed in the approved pathway that the biointermediate producer and renewable fuel producer are using to convert renewable biomass to renewable fuel." As a result of this action finalizing the grain sorghum oil pathway and definition of distillers corn oil, distillers corn and sorghum oil will be listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, so that these oils are the feedstocks and unless they are "substantially altered" (see 2016 REGS proposed rule for discussion of that phrase) after they are recovered and before they are delivered to the renewable fuel producer, they would not be biointermediates based on the proposed definition. Thus, the approach in this rule does not approve a feedstock that would be treated differently under the biointermediates approach in the 2016 REGS proposed rule.  See preamble section IV for more information.
Lifecycle analysis:
Comments: EPA received two comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0041, 0042) on the 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule asking EPA to consider the GHG displacement emissions associated with mass loss of DGS and decreased volume of vegetable oil because of oil extraction. Additionally, the commenters asked EPA to consider the GHG impacts of reduced-oil DGS marketed to livestock beyond dairy cattle.

Response: Based on these comments, EPA has conducted additional analysis to include these additional GHG impacts into our lifecycle analysis. See section III.B.1 of our preamble for a discussion of our updated analysis.

Comment: One commenter on the 2016 REGS proposed rule said they oppose corn-based biofuels from qualifying for advanced RINs, but largely agree with the Agency's reasoning in broadening the definition of extracted corn oil. They also said, "should the amount of resulting animal feed be reduced, that would require a new analysis to consider impacts on land-use, emissions and food prices." (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041-0296)
Response: Regarding the commenter's general opposition to "corn-based" biofuels qualifying as advanced biofuel, we note that CAA 211(o)(B) says, "The term `advanced biofuel' means renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn starch...." Our interpretation is that the reference to "starch" in the statute means that fuel produced from the non-starch components of corn may qualify as advanced biofuel, provided all other applicable definitional and regulatory criteria are satisfied.
With respect to the request to do a new analysis for corn oil, EPA believes such an analysis is unnecessary. The term "distillers corn oil" is replacing "non-food grade corn oil" in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, for pathways that were already approved as meeting the 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold in 2010. Revisiting EPA's prior determination that these pathways satisfy the 50% GHG reduction threshold is outside the scope of this rule, and the commenter did not provide sufficient data/information to warrant us to revisit that decision. In the 2016 REGS proposed rule we said, "we believe that the precise timing and method of corn oil extraction is not relevant for GHG reductions to be accomplished pursuant to pathways F and H, provided that: (1) The corn is converted to ethanol; (2) The corn oil is extracted at a point in the dry mill ethanol production process that renders it unfit for food uses without further refining; and (3) The resulting DGS from the dry mill operation is marketable as animal feed." We continue to believe the above statement is correct, because, based on the analyses conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule and this rule approving distillers sorghum oil, the means and location of oil recovery tend contribute a very small share of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the production and use of the finished biofuel, even when conservative assumptions are used. Given the similarities between distillers corn and sorghum oil (e.g., recovered at the same facilities using same machinery and processes, similar impact on DGS nutritional value), the finding in this rule that certain biofuels produced from distillers sorghum oil meets the 50% GHG reduction threshold, even taking into consideration the possibility of livestock feed substitution, provides further support for EPA's approval of the same fuels produced from distillers corn oil for advanced biofuel RINs.
Environmental Assessment and Available Information
Comments: EPA received one comment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0042) on the 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule asking the EPA to not move forward with its pathway determination if it determined that the "`information currently available' is inadequate to support a full analysis."

Response:  As with all lifecycle analyses, certain assumptions must be made based on the best available science. For new or niche fuels, information may be limited, as in the case of sorghum oil. The best available science for some assumptions were based on expert judgement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with whom we have extensively consulted on this analysis. Therefore, we believe we have conducted a sufficient lifecycle analysis for sorghum oil biofuels.

It is important to note that the purpose of lifecycle assessment under the RFS program is not to precisely estimate lifecycle GHG emissions associated with particular biofuels, but instead to determine whether or not the fuels satisfy specified lifecycle GHG emissions reductions thresholds in comparison to baseline fuels to qualify as one or more of the four types of renewable fuel specified in the statute. Where there are a range of possible outcomes and the fuel satisfies the GHG reduction requirements when "conservative" assumptions are used, then a more precise quantification of the matter is not required for purposes of a pathway determination.

Comments:
EPA received one comment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0042) on the 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule asking the EPA to "evaluate the impacts of water and air quality and biodiversity that would result from an increase in the production of other feed crops such as corn and soybeans to backfill for lost DGS."

Response: EPA has not performed the evaluation requested by the commenter.  Under the Clean Air Act, a lifecycle analysis is used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG reductions required to be considered a renewable fuel or one of the subsets of renewable fuel. EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect emissions, such as indirect emissions from land use changes and agricultural sector impacts.  For purposes of the lifecycle GHG analysis of distillers sorghum oil, we conservatively assumed that 1.2 lbs of corn could be substituted as feed for each pound of distillers sorghum oil.   For further explanation about EPA's lack of discretion to consider extra-statutory environmental impacts unrelated to lifecycle GHG emissions when making pathway determinations and why EPA does not believe this rule should be treated as the cause of any individual environmental harm, see the discussion below.
The Energy Independence and Security Act (2007) states that the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on air quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and water supply is to be considered in determining the fuel volumes for the program in years following 2022. The impact of renewable fuels on these environmental outcomes are also to be considered in a triannual report to Congress. Pursuant to this requirement, the EPA released its second Triennial Report to Congress this summer (EPA/600/R-18/195, 2018).
Endangered Species Act
Comments: EPA received one comment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655-0042) on the 2017 distillers sorghum oil proposed rule asking the EPA to "fulfill its Endangered Species Act Section 7 duties by consulting with wildlife agencies [...] to ensure that any loss of habitat, including modification or pollution resulting from land use changes associated with the increased production of sorghum-oil based biofuels, does not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed endangered and threatened species or cause the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat."
Response:
EPA received the above comment on the proposed distillers sorghum oil rule suggesting that EPA is required to enter into consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (together, "the Services") regarding the rule under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  EPA disagrees that consultation with the Services is required for today's rule because the EPA lacks discretion to consider impacts to threatened and endangered species or critical habitat in determining what fuels qualify as advanced biofuel or biomass-based diesel under the RFS program, and because, even if it had such discretion, today's rule will have no effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with one or both of the Services (depending on the species at issue), to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.   16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).   Under relevant implementing regulations and case law, section 7(a)(2) applies only to actions where there is discretionary federal involvement or control.  50 CFR 402.03; National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007). Further, under the relevant regulations consultation is required only for actions that "may affect" listed species or designated critical habitat.  50 CFR 402.14.   Consultation is not required where the action has no effect on such species or habitat.   It is the federal agency taking the action that evaluates the action and determines whether consultation is required.   See 51 FR 19926, 19949 (June 3, 1986).   Effects of an action include both the direct and indirect effects that will be added to the environmental baseline.   50 CFR 402.02.   Direct effects are the direct or immediate effects of an action on a listed species or its habitat.  Indirect effects are those that are "caused by" the proposed action and are "later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur."   Id.  Thus, to trigger the consultation requirement, there must be discretionary federal involvement or control, and either a "direct effect" or an "indirect effect" that is both "caused by" the federal action and "reasonably certain to occur."
Lack of Discretion.  In National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007) (Defenders of Wildlife), the Supreme Court evaluated a claim that EPA was required to engage in Section 7 consultation in the context of its approval of a state permitting program under the Clean Water Act (CWA).   In that case, the Court held that when a Federal agency is required by statute to undertake a particular action without taking into account species impacts, there is no relevant agency discretion, and thus the requirements of ESA Section 7(a)(2) do not apply.   Id.  at 2536. With regard to EPA's transfer of CWA permitting authority to a State, the relevant CWA provision specified that EPA ``shall approve'' a state permitting program if a list of CWA statutory criteria are met. The Court found that the relevant CWA program approval criteria did not include consideration of endangered or threatened species, and stated that ``[n]othing in the text of [the relevant CWA provision] authorizes EPA to consider the protection of threatened or endangered species as an end in itself when evaluating [an] application'' to transfer a permitting program to a State. Id. at 2537. Accordingly, the Court held that the CWA required EPA to approve the state's permitting program if the statutory criteria were met; those criteria did not include the consideration of ESA-protected species; and thus, consistent with 50 CFR 402.03, the nondiscretionary action to transfer CWA permitting authority to the state did not trigger ESA Section 7 consultation requirements.
Similar to the CWA program approval provision at issue in Defenders of Wildlife, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to develop a regulatory program to ensure that the Act's renewable fuel blending requirements are achieved, 42 USC 7545(2)(A)(i), and contains detailed provisions specifying the parameters of fuels that qualify under this regulatory program.  None of those provisions provide EPA the discretion to modify its evaluation of potential qualifying fuels based on consideration of impacts to threatened or endangered species.   Of relevance here, the Act includes detailed definitions of the terms "advanced biofuel" and "biomass-based diesel," and those definitions do not allow for consideration of impacts to threatened or endangered species.   "Advanced biofuel" is defined as "renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn starch, that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for comment, that are at least 50 percent less than baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions."  42 USC 7545(o)(1)(B).  This definition includes defined terms within it, including the terms "renewable fuel," ("[f]uel that is produced from renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel"), "baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions" ("average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions... . for gasoline or diesel... . sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005"), and "lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions," defined as follows:

      The term "lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions" means the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes), as determined by the Administrator, related to the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock generation or extraction through the distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass values for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative global warming potential."

42 USC 7545(o)(1)(J), (H).  Thus, in determining if a fuel qualifies as "advanced biofuel," EPA must consider whether it meets the definition of "renewable fuel,"  -  that is, whether it is made from "renewable biomass" as defined in the statute, and is "used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in transportation fuel."  EPA must also consider whether a fuel is made from corn starch, and whether it satisfies the requirement that it achieve a fifty percent lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions reduction as compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.  These factors represent the full range of considerations that EPA is authorized to consider in determining whether a fuel qualifies as advanced biofuel; it follows that EPA is not authorized to consider impacts to threatened or endangered species in determining what fuels qualify as advanced biofuels under the Act.   In light of this carefully constrained statutory scheme, EPA is without authority to alter its rule based on listed species considerations and is under no obligation to consult with the Services under Section 7(a) of the ESA with respect to the advanced biofuel pathways established in today's rule that utilize sorghum oil feedstock, or the amendments to the existing advanced biofuel rules related to the use of non-food grade corn oil (now referred to as distillers corn oil) as feedstock. EPA has no discretion to tailor these rules to reflect consideration of impacts to threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat, so consultation is not required.

The same is true with respect to the pathways approved in today's rule for the production of biomass based diesel from sorghum oil, and the amendments to the existing rule allowing the production of biomass-based diesel from non-food grade corn oil (now referred to as distillers corn oil). The term biomass-based diesel is defined in the statute as:

      ... renewable fuel that is biodiesel as defined in section 1322(f) of this title and that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions... that are at least 50 percent less than the baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.   Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, renewable fuel derived from co-processing biomass with a petroleum feedstock shall be advanced biofuel if it meets the requirements of [42 USC 7545(o)(1)(B)], but is not biomass-based diesel.

42 USC 7545(o)(1)(D).  The term "biodiesel" is defined in 42 USC 1322(f) to mean "... a diesel fuel substitute produced from nonpetroleum renewable resources that meets the registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency under section 211 of the Clean Air Act [42 USCS § 7545] and "includes biodiesel derived from--
(i)  animal wastes, including poultry fats and poultry wastes, and other waste materials; or
(ii)  municipal solid waste and sludges and oils derived from wastewater and the treatment of wastewater."  Thus, in evaluating whether a fuel qualifies as biomass based diesel, EPA is authorized to consider only whether the fuel meets the definition of renewable fuel (made from renewable biomass and used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel), whether it provides a qualifying lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction as compared to baseline petroleum fuel, whether the biomass is co-processed with petroleum feedstocks, and whether it meets the registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives established via rulemaking by EPA. EPA has no discretion to tailor rules identifying qualifying biomass-based diesel to reflect additional considerations not identified in the statute, such as impacts to threatened or endangered species.  As a result, EPA is not required to consult with the Services under ESA Section 7 in establishing such rules.

No Effect.   Even if EPA had discretion to consider impacts to threatened or endangered species in the context of adopting rules identifying pathways for the production of qualifying advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel which, as described above, it does not, consultation with the Services regarding today's final rule would not be required since the rule will have no effect on threatened or endangered species or the critical habitat of such species.

First, there are no "direct effects" from today's rule. The rule simply allows independent third parties an opportunity to make qualifying renewable fuel using the new or amended pathways. It does not require this result. The rule has no immediate on-the-ground direct effects of any sort; it does not mandate that any renewable fuel be produced from distillers sorghum oil or distillers corn oil; and it does not dictate the location for the production of crops that could, depending on the future decisions of third parties, be used to produce the grain sorghum and corn feedstocks used in dry mill ethanol facilities. It also does not dictate or control the location of dry mill ethanol facilities or the biofuel production facilities that could potentially use distillers corn oil or distillers sorghum oil in renewable fuel production.  Thus, the rule does not have any direct effect on any threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.

Under the Services' regulations, an indirect effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat must be caused by the action, be later in time, and be reasonably certain to occur. There are no such indirect effects associated with today's rule, since impacts to threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat, are not reasonably certain to occur as a result of this rule and, similarly, any impacts that could in theory occur would be too remotely associated with today's rule to be "caused" by it.
The EPA issues annual standards under the RFS program that specify the percentage of transportation fuel used in the continental U.S. and Hawaii that must be comprised of renewable fuel. The standards are implemented on an annual average and nationwide basis. The types of renewable fuels that can be used to satisfy the requirements are generally broadly defined, and can be made from a variety of feedstocks and processes located in the United States or abroad. There is, for example, no specific requirement under the RFS program for the use of advanced biofuel or biomass-based diesel made from grain sorghum oil or corn oil.  In fact, the vast majority of these fuel types are made either from waste oils, fats and greases, or soy oil. There are also multiple types of renewable fuels that can be used to satisfy RFS requirements.  For example, advanced biofuels can include fuels such as ethanol derived from sugarcane, biodiesel, renewable diesel, butanol, compressed natural gas, and liquefied natural gas. Decisions on what type of feedstock to use for biofuel production, where such feedstocks are grown, the types and volumes of agricultural inputs such as fertilizer or pesticide to use in growing the feedstocks, and what types of renewable fuel will ultimately be produced, are made by third parties whose activities are not required by EPA's renewable fuel standards rules or its rules identifying acceptable pathways for renewable fuel production.  The decisions of these third parties are likely influenced by a number of considerations that are likely to be at least as important, and in sum are likely to be more important, than EPA determinations regarding acceptable RFS renewable fuel production pathways.
While a significant proportion of the corn and sorghum crops in the U.S. are used as feedstock to produce ethanol (and associated distillers grains and oils), approximately two-thirds of the production of each crop is used for other purposes.  Thus, at this time, it  is not reasonably certain that any specific alleged effects on endangered or threatened species or critical habitats can be attributed to the use of corn and sorghum for ethanol production, and in particular to distillers oil production, as compared to uses of corn and sorghum for other purposes.   Furthermore, ethanol is by far the most widely used biofuel in the U.S., and its use not only satisfies RFS and other state renewable fuel requirements, but also provides an important low-cost source of octane for gasoline as well as gasoline volume. Almost all gasoline in the U.S. now contains ethanol, which is generally blended downstream of refineries at terminals.  The refineries themselves produce sub-octane gasoline blendstocks (referred to as blendstocks for oxygenate blending, or BOBs) that cannot be sold as gasoline without the subsequent addition of ethanol at downstream locations such as terminals. This practice began in the 1990s in reformulated gasoline areas, and quickly expanded beginning in 2006 into conventional gasoline areas as several factors, including the rising prices for crude oil relative to corn, caused ethanol to become the preferred source of octane for gasoline. The gasoline refining and distribution system, driven by the favorable blending economics of ethanol over the last dozen years, has invested heavily to fully transform itself to rely on the use of ethanol. Refiners have modified their process units and operations to produce BOBs instead of finished gasoline. Pipelines likewise have shifted their physical assets and operations to distribute these BOBs instead of finished gasoline. Terminals across the country have all been modified to receive and store shipments of ethanol and blend it into these BOBs. Consequently, the blending of 10% ethanol into gasoline in the U.S. is now firmly entrenched. To reverse course and go back to refining and distributing ethanol-free finished gasoline would require a market wide shift that would then take years and likely billions of dollars to implement. This would require a significant economic driver over a sustained period. Given the current economic advantage of blending ethanol as E10, and the forecasts of crude oil and corn prices, there is no apparent economic driver either at present or on the horizon that would change this market dynamic. [,] Because of these considerations, it is likely that even if EPA completely waived RFS requirements (or suspended all approved RFS pathways for ethanol production), the market would continue to demand essentially the same volumes of ethanol for use as a gasoline octane enhancer and source of fuel supply. These findings are similar to those we made in response to petitions for a waiver of the 2012 and 2013 RFS standards on the basis of severe economic harm associated with a drought, where we concluded that in all likelihood the RFS standards in the latter part of 2012 and early part of 2013 would not drive ethanol use. The volume of ethanol sales in 2012 was only slightly lower than it was in 2017  -  the last full year for which data is available (see Figure 1 below).
                                   Figure 1
        Historical Pool-wide Average Ethanol Concentration of Gasoline

                                   Figure 2
                      Annual U.S. Biofuel Export Volumes

We also note that, as depicted in Figure 2, above, U.S. ethanol producers have exported substantial volumes of ethanol to overseas markets, even as use of this biofuel in the U.S. has increased.  If EPA were to completely waive RFS requirements (or suspend the effectiveness of ethanol production pathways), we would expect that domestic use of ethanol in the U.S. might decrease slightly (primarily as a result of decreased sales of higher level ethanol blends such as E15 of E85), but we also believe that it is likely that ethanol producers would seek to make use of their past investments to continue to produce the same volume of ethanol and would simply shift sales to overseas markets to accomplish this objective. This would likely lead to comparable production of distillers corn oil and distillers sorghum oil  -  either for use in biofuel production for domestic or foreign markets (note biodiesel exports in Figure 2), or as a component of animal feed. The result would be comparable impacts associated with corn and sorghum production as may occur through implementation of the RFS program, including today's rule identifying pathways for renewable fuel production from distillers corn oil and distillers sorghum oil.
EPA discussed the potential for large-scale corn cultivation, including cultivation for biofuels markets, to have adverse environmental impacts in its recent report to Congress. However, there remains substantial uncertainty about associating biofuel demand at the national or regional level with any particular quantity or location of corn cultivation. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed in this response, distinguishing the impact of the RFS standards from general demand for biofuels adds substantial additional uncertainty to the attribution of any adverse environmental impacts, and there is even less basis to associate the changes in this rulemaking with any particular impacts. Given the broad range of drivers of ethanol production and corn and sorghum plantings in the U.S., it is highly unlikely today's rule could bend current trends or market forces such that it will "cause" indirect effects on listed species or critical habitat. Ethanol production is the key economic consideration for dry mill ethanol plants. DGS, distillers corn oil and distillers sorghum oil are all byproducts of the process of ethanol production. The ability to use extracted distillers corn oil or distillers sorghum oil as a feedstock to produce additional biofuels is a peripheral economic consideration for the production of ethanol at dry mill ethanol plants. Furthermore, the potential environmental impacts we assessed in the context of today's rule related to the substitution of corn for oil removed from sorghum DGS are not reasonably certain to occur. As explained in section III.B.1 in the preamble to today's rule, we conservatively assumed for the purpose of responding to comments on our GHG analysis that any loss of nutritional value and/or mass associated with de-oiling sorghum DGS would be compensated with corn substitutes. However, we have not determined that such substitution will or is reasonably certain to occur. Further, it is not possible to know where, when, and how any additional increment of planting would occur such that we could predict any potential impacts on species or critical habitat with reasonable certainty.
In sum, taking into account the multiple attribution issues discussed above, we do not believe it could be reasonably argued that any individual environmental harm, including any theoretical harm to particular threatened or endangered species or their habitat, will be "caused" by today's rule or be reasonably certain to occur.  Thus, consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA is not required.


[Federal Register: October 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 200)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63709-63710]
[DOCID:fr18oc10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0386; Airspace Docket No. 10-AWA-1]

Revocation of Class C Airspace, Establishment of Class D
Airspace, and Modification of Class E Airspace; Columbus, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes the Columbus, GA, Class C airspace area;
establishes Class D airspace to replace the Class C airspace; and
amends the existing Class E surface area and 700 foot Class E airspace
at Columbus, GA. The FAA is taking this action because Columbus
Metropolitan Airport no longer meets the criteria required to qualify
for a Class C airspace designation. Reconfiguring the airspace
facilitates more efficient use of airspace in the Columbus, GA area. A
minor correction to the geographic coordinates for Lawson Army Airfield
(AAF) also will be made.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 13, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Regulations and
ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 18, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking to remove the Columbus, GA, Class C airspace
area, establish the Columbus, GA, Class D airspace area and modify the
existing Class E surface area and the 700 foot Class E airspace area at
Columbus, GA (75 FR 27670). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. No comments were received.
    This rule includes a minor correction to the description geographic
coordinates of the AAF, Fort Benning, GA, listed in the description of
paragraph 6005. With the exception of this correction and editorial
changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by removing the Columbus Metropolitan Airport Class C airspace
area; establishing a new part-time Class D airspace area to replace the
former Class C airspace; and modifying the existing Class E surface
area and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Columbus, Ga. The radius of the Class E surface area at the
airport will be reduced from 5 nautical miles (NM) to 4.4 NM to match
the radius of the dimensions of the Class D airspace area, while the
radius of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Columbus Metropolitan Airport will be reduced from 10 NM to
6.8 NM. Columbus Metropolitan Airport no longer meets the air traffic
volume and passenger enplanements required for a Class C airspace
designation.
    Class C airspace areas, Class D airspace areas, Class E surface
areas and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface, are published in paragraphs 4000, 5000, 6002, and 6005,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective
September, 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class C, D and E airspace area amendments proposed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends a portion of the terminal airspace structure to enhance
the safe and efficient use of the NAS in the vicinity of Columbus, GA.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000 Class C Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA C Columbus Metropolitan Airport, GA [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA D Columbus, GA [New]

Columbus Metropolitan Airport, GA

    (Lat. 32[deg]30'59'' N., long. 84[deg]56'20'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,900 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of the Columbus Metropolitan
Airport; and that airspace within 1 mile each side of the 234[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 5
miles south of the airport. This Class D airspace is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASO GA E2 Columbus Metropolitan Airport, GA [Amended]

Columbus Metropolitan Airport
    (Lat. 32[deg]30'59'' N., long. 84[deg]56'20'' W.)

    Within a 4.4-mile radius of Columbus Metropolitan Airport; and
that airspace within 1 mile each side of the 234[deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 5 miles south of
the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

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

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Columbus, GA [Amended]

Columbus Metropolitan Airport, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]30'59'' N., long. 84[deg]56'20'' W.)
Lawson AAF, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]19'54'' N., long. 84[deg]59'14'' W.)
Lawson VOR/DME
    (Lat. 32[deg]19'57'' N., long. 84[deg]59'36'' W.)
Lawson LOC
    (Lat. 32[deg]20'43'' N., long. 84[deg]59'55'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Columbus Metropolitan Airport; and
within 1 mile each side of the 234[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 7.3-miles south of the
airport; and within a 7.6-mile radius of Lawson AAF; and within 2.5
miles each side of Lawson VOR/DME 340[deg] radial extending from the
7.6-mile radius to 15 miles north of the VOR/DME; and within 4 miles
each side of the Lawson LOC 145[deg] course extending from the 7.6-
mile radius to 10.6 miles southeast of Lawson AAF.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-26094 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 14867-14868]
[DOCID:fr19mr08-126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0035]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers Regulations,
Supporting Documents

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval. On November 26, 2007, FMCSA published a Federal Register
notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. Thirty-eight
comments were received, but none spoke to the paperwork burden or other
aspects of the ICR.

DATES: Please send your comments by April 18, 2008. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers Regulations, Supporting
Documents (formerly Hours of Service of Drivers Regulations).
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0001.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor Carriers, Drivers of commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs).
    Estimated Number of Respondents:
    Drivers: approximately 4.6 million;
    Active Motor Carriers: approximately 700,000.
    Estimated Time per Response: The driver will take an average of 6.5
minutes to fill out a record of duty status (RODS), and 5 minutes to
forward the completed RODS to the employing motor carrier. The motor
carrier takes an average of 2 minutes to review a RODS, 1 minute per
day to maintain a RODS, and 1 minute per day to maintain the supporting
documents of one RODS.
    Expiration Date: 11/30/2008.
    Frequency of Response:
    Drivers: 240 days per year, on average.
    Motor Carriers: 240 days per year, on average.
    Total Number of Annual Responses Expected
    A. Driver
    (1) Filling Out the RODS: 1,104,000,000 (4.6 million drivers x 240
days);
    (2) Forwarding the RODS to the Motor Carrier: 115 million (4.6
million drivers x 25 times per year ) and
    (3) Forwarding the Supporting Documents to the Motor Carrier: 0
(the activity is usual and customary).
    B. Motor Carrier
    (1). Reviewing the RODS: 552 million (2.3 million RODS reviewed
daily x 240 days);
    (2). Maintaining the RODS: 1,104,000,000 (4.6 million drivers x 240
days); and
    (3). Maintaining the Supporting Documents: 1,104,000,000 (4.6
million drivers x 240 days).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 184,380,000 hours [driver burden of
129,180,000 and motor carrier burden of 55,200,000 hours] .
    Background:
    The FMCSA regulates the amount of time a driver may drive and be on
duty. A CMV driver must keep a record of duty status (RODS), commonly
referred to as a logbook, that indicates his or her duty status
(driving, on duty not driving, off duty, sleeper berth) for all periods
of the duty day. The RODS must be maintained on the CMV for 7 days, and
subsequently submitted to the motor carrier along with any ``supporting
documents,'' such as fuel receipts and toll tickets, that could assist
in verifying the accuracy of entries on the RODS. The motor carrier
must retain the RODS and supporting documents for a minimum of 6 months
from date of receipt.
    Statutory authority for regulating the hours of service (HOS) of
drivers operating CMVs in interstate commerce is derived from 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31502. The penalty provisions are located at 49 U.S.C. 521,
522 and 526, as amended. On November 28, 1982, the Federal Highway
Administration, the agency previously responsible for administration of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 350

et seq.), promulgated a final rule that required a motor carrier to
verify the accuracy of the HOS of each driver and to ensure that
drivers record their duty status in a specified format (47 FR 53383).
    The HOS rules provide two methods of creating a RODS: A paper RODS
that provides a grid for the driver to record his or her time and
location throughout the duty day, and an Automatic On-Board Recording
Device as defined by section 395.15. The HOS regulations exempt
employers of certain ``short haul'' CMV drivers from the RODS
requirement if they maintain the employee's U.S. Department of Labor
``time card'' at the place of business for a period of six months
(Section 395.1(e)).
    The RODS is an important tool because it provides the information
the carrier and enforcement personnel require to determine the
compliance of a driver with the HOS rules. The adherence of drivers and
motor carriers to the HOS requirements helps FMCSA protect the public
by reducing the number of tired CMV drivers on the highways.
    Most States receive grants from FMCSA under the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program. As a condition of receiving these grants,
States agree to adopt and enforce the FMCSRs, including the HOS rules,
as State law. As a result, State enforcement inspectors use the RODS
and supporting documents to determine whether CMV drivers, in
interstate or intrastate commerce, are complying with the HOS rules.
    In addition, FMCSA uses the RODS during on-site compliance reviews
(CRs) of motor carriers. The CR determines the overall safety rating of
a motor carrier, and a negative review can be damaging to a motor
carrier's CMV operations because the results of CRs are public
information. Many shippers of property use the results of these CRs, as
well as other records of a motor carrier's crash and violation history,
in selecting a motor carrier to transport their freight. Finally, the
RODS have traditionally been the principal document accepted by the
judicial system as evidence of a violation of the HOS regulations. This
information collection supports the DOT's Strategic Goal of Safety
because the information helps the Agency ensure the safe operation of
CMVs in interstate commerce on our Nation's highways.
    In this ICR, FMCSA proposes an increase in the estimated number of
CMV drivers affected by the HOS regulations. This reflects an increase
in the total number of CMV operators on the highways today, as compared
to 2005 when OMB last approved the Agency's calculation of the IC
burden. The total number of interstate and intrastate CMV drivers is
currently estimated to be 7.0 million. Of these, 4.6 million are
required to complete RODS and furnish supporting documents. The
remainder consists of the ``short haul'' drivers exempt from the RODS
requirement.
    In this submission, the FMCSA also provides greater specificity in
its calculation of the HOS paperwork burden. To do so, the Agency has
reorganized its breakdown of the various paperwork tasks performed by
drivers and motor carriers. The revised organization allows the reader
to distinguish the paperwork burden of the RODS from the paperwork
burden of the supporting documents, and the burden of the driver from
the burden of the employer (motor carrier).
    On November 26, 2007, the FMCSA published a Federal Register notice
on this same topic and provided 60 days for public comment (72 FR
66019). The Agency received 38 comments to the docket, including four
that appear to have been sent to this docket inadvertently. None of the
comments addressed the paperwork burden of the HOS rules. There was no
discussion in the comments of the necessity of the paperwork burden, or
the accuracy of the information collected. The comments offered no
suggestions for minimizing the burden of the IC, or for improving the
quality, usefulness, or clarity of the information collected.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information.

    Issued on: March 12, 2008.
Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
 [FR Doc. E8-5477 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 114)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33337-33341]
[DOCID:fr12jn08-31]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0470]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary regulated

navigation area and safety zone on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
near Romeoville, IL. This proposed regulated navigation area and safety
zone places navigational and operational restrictions on all vessels
transiting through the electrical dispersal barrier IIA.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0470 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulation.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule call CDR Tim Cummins, Deputy Prevention Division, Ninth Coast
Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0470), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
document to ensure that you can be identified as the submitter. This
also allows us to contact you in the event further information is
needed or if there are questions. For example, if we cannot read your
submission due to technical difficulties and you cannot be contacted;
your submission may not be considered. You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by
mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0470)
in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The electrodes on the demonstration electrical dispersal barrier I
located between mile markers 296.1 and 296.7 of the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal are beginning to fail. This barrier was constructed to
prevent Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan through the Illinois
River system by generating a low-voltage electric field across the
canal. The Army Corps of Engineers intends to shut down barrier I and
begin the process of replacing the barrier electrodes which run across
the bottom of the canal. Divers will be in the water and a barge-
mounted crane will be operating during maintenance operations to
barrier I. Electrical dispersal barrier IIA located on the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal 270 feet south of mile marker 296.1 to mile
marker 296.7 will be in operation while repairs are being made to
demonstration electrical dispersal barrier I. Barrier IIA will operate
continuously for a two week period before taking barrier I off line for
electrode replacement. Electrical dispersal barrier IIA generates a
more powerful electric field than barrier I over a larger area within
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
    The Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted field
tests to ensure the continued safe navigation of commercial and
recreational traffic across the barrier; however, results indicated an
arcing risk and hazardous electrical discharges as vessels transited
the barrier posing a serious risk to navigation through the barrier. To
mitigate these risks, navigational and operational restrictions will be
placed on all vessels transiting through the vicinity. Until the
potential electrical hazards can be rectified, the Coast Guard will
require vessels transiting the regulated navigation area to adhere to
specified operational and navigational requirements.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule will suspend 33 CFR 165.923 and place additional
restrictions on all vessels transiting through electrical dispersal
barrier IIA located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from June
30, 2008 until August 15, 2008. The regulated navigation area
encompasses all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 270 feet
south of the Romeo Road Bridge Mile Marker 296.1 to the south side of
the Aerial Pipeline Mile Marker 296.7. The requirements placed on all
vessels include: All up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain
one or more red flag barges transiting through the restricted
navigation area must be

assisted by a bow boat at least one mile above the restricted
navigation area to at least one mile below the restricted navigation
area. Red flag barges are barges containing hazardous materials as
identified by commodity codes:

01 (Empty with previous hazardous material)
20 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products)
21 (Crude Petroleum)
22 (Gasoline, Jet Fuel and Kerosene)
23 (Distillate, Residual and other Fuel Oils; Lubricating Oils and
Greases)
24 (Petroleum Pitches, Coke Asphalt, Naphtha and Solvents)
30 (Chemicals and Related Products)
31 (Fertilizer-Nitrogenous, Potassic, Phosphatic and Others)
32 (Organic Industrial Chemicals {Crude Products{time}  from Coal, Tar,
Petroleum and Natural Gas, Dyes, Organic Pigment Dying and Tanning
Materials, Alcohols, Benzene; Inorganic Industrial Chemicals {Sodium
Hydroxide{time} ; Radioactive and Associated Materials; Drugs)
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will contract bow boat assistance
for barge tows containing one or more red flag barges. Information on
how to contact the contractor for bow boat assistance will be provided
to the public in a Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Towing assistance will
be provided from at least one mile above the restricted navigation area
to at least one mile below the restricted navigation area.
    This proposed rule prohibits all vessels from loitering in the
regulated navigation area; vessels may enter the regulated navigation
area for the sole purpose of transiting to the other side and must
maintain headway throughout the transit. The rule also requires all
personnel on open decks to wear a Coast Guard approved Type I personal
flotation device while in the regulated navigation area. In addition,
vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending banks in
the regulated navigation area; towboats may not make or break tows in
the regulated navigation area; vessels may not pass (meet or overtake)
in the regulated navigation area. All vessels must make a SECURITE call
when approaching the barrier to announce intentions and work out
passing arrangements on either side. Finally, commercial tows
transiting the regulated navigation area must be made up with wire rope
to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow.
    These restrictions are necessary for safe navigation of the
regulated navigation area and to ensure the safety of vessels and their
personnel as well as the public's safety due to the electrical
discharges noted during safety tests conducted by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Deviation from this proposed rule is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District or
his designated representative. The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard
District will designate Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan as his
designated representative for the purposes of this proposed rule.
    A temporary safety zone will be in place while repairs are being
made to barrier I. This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure
the safety of workers and vessels during maintenance operations to
barrier I on the Chicago and Sanitary Ship Canal.
    The maintenance on barrier I will occur between 7 a.m., July 14,
2008 and 5 p.m., August 9, 2008. The safety zone will be enforced from
7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on July 14, 2008 through August
9, 2008. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Chicago
Sanitary Ship Canal from mile marker 296.1 to mile marker 296.7.
    The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the
safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate
means to the affected segments of the public. Such means of
notification will include, but is not limited to, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will
issue a broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when
enforcement of the safety zone is terminated.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This determination is based on the fact that traffic will still be
able to transit through the regulated navigation area and the minimal
time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone. The safety
zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse
impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal from
June 30, 2008 to August 15, 2008.
    This regulated navigation area and safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. Vessel traffic will be able to transit
through the regulated navigation area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will contract bow boat assistance for barge tows containing one or more
Red Flag barges. Vessel traffic will only be limited for one five hour
period and one four hour period each day the safety zone is in effect.
In the event this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial
vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give
notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the
regulation is in effect.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 CDR Tim Cummins, Deputy Prevention Division,
Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH
44199;<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights
protections need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this
proposed 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. Nevertheless, Indian
Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this proposed
rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of
contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management
system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

Sec.  165.923  [Suspended]

    2. Section 165.923 is suspended from July 30, 2008, until August
15, 2008.
    3. A new temporary Sec.  165.T09-0470 is added as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0470  Temporary Regulated Navigation Area and Safety
Zone, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL.

    a. (1) Regulated Navigation Area. The following is a Regulated
Navigation Area: All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
Romeoville, IL, 270 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge Mile Marker
296.1 to the south side of the Aerial Pipeline Mile Marker 296.7.
    (2) Effective period. This regulation is effective from June 30,
2008, until August 15, 2008.
    (3) Definitions. The following definitions apply to paragraph
a.(1): Designated representative means the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan.
    Red Flag barges means barges containing hazardous materials as
identified by commodity codes:
    (a) 01 (Empty with previous hazardous material);
    (b) 20 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products);

    (c) 21 (Crude Petroleum);
    (d) 22 (Gasoline, Jet Fuel and Kerosene);
    (e) 23 (Distillate, Residual and other Fuel Oils; Lubricating Oils
and Greases);
    (f) 24 (Petroleum Pitches, Coke Asphalt, Naphtha and Solvents);
    (g) 30 (Chemicals and Related Products);
    (h) 31 (Fertilizer-Nitrogenous, Potassic, Phosphatic and Others);
and
    (i) 32 (Organic Industrial Chemicals {Crude Products{time}  from
Coal, Tar, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Dyes, Organic Pigment Dying and
Tanning Materials, Alcohols, Benzene; Inorganic Industrial Chemicals
{Sodium Hydroxide{time} ; Radioactive and Associated Materials; Drugs)
    (4) Regulations. (a) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.13 apply.
    (b) All up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain one or more
red flag barges transiting through the restricted navigation area must
be assisted by a bow boat until the entire tow is clear of the expanded
restricted navigation area boundaries.
    1. Information on how to contact the contractor for bow boat
assistance will be provided to the public in a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
    2. Towing assistance will be provided from at least one mile above
the restricted navigation area to at least one mile below the
restricted navigation area.
    (c) All vessels are prohibited from loitering in the regulated
navigation area.
    (d) Vessels may enter the regulated navigation area for the sole
purpose of transiting to the other side and must maintain headway
throughout the transit.
    (e) All personnel on open decks must wear a Coast Guard approved
Type I personal flotation device while in the regulated navigation
area.
    (f) Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending
banks of the regulated navigation area.
    (g) Towboats may not make or break tows in the regulated navigation
area.
    (h) Vessels may not pass (meet or overtake) in the regulated
navigation area and must make a SECURITE call when approaching the
barrier to announce intentions and work out passing arrangements on
either side.
    (i) Commercial tows transiting the regulated navigation area must
be made up with wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all
segments of the tow.
    (5) Compliance. All persons and vessels must comply with this
section and any additional instructions of the Ninth Coast Guard
District Commander, or his designated representative.
    b.(1) Safety Zone. The following area is a temporary safety zone:
All waters of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal from mile marker 296.1 to
296.7.
    (2) Effective period. This regulation is effective from 7 a.m.,
July 14, 2008, to 5 p.m., August 9, 2008. The safety zone will be
enforced from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on July 14, 2008,
through August 9, 2008.
    (3) Regulations. (a) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative, for b.(1).
    (b) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene
representative, for b.(1).
    (c) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf for b.(1).
The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard
either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of
the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16.
    (d) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so.
    Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 30, 2008.
Michael N. Parks,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Ninth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-13145 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P