[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49997]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0668]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast Guard
District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Delaware River, Philadelphia,
PA; Safety Zone from 7:45 p.m. through 8:45 p.m. on September 18, 2022,
to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the
Mexican Independence Day fireworks display. Our regulation for
fireworks displays in the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the
regulated area for this event in Philadelphia, PA. During the
enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area
must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location
identified in entry 10 of table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) from 7:45 p.m.
through 8:45 p.m. on September 18, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Dylan
Caikowski, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management
Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 for the
Mexican Independence Day fireworks display from 7:45 p.m. through 8:45
p.m. on September 18, 2022. This action is necessary to ensure safety
of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior
to, during, and immediately after the fireworks display. Our regulation
for safety zones of fireworks displays in the Fifth Coast Guard
District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10
specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of Delaware
River, adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-yard
radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for
the fireworks barge is latitude 39[deg]56'50'' N, longitude
075[deg]08'18'' W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in Sec.
165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the
safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated
Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period
via broadcast notice to mariners.

    Dated: August 9, 2022.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2022-17461 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX AIR DIVISION Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed Rulemaking for the Nevada State Implementation Plan Prepared by: Julie Rose August 26, 2005  2 BACKGROUND  Outside of Clark and Washoe counties, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection ( NDEP) has primary responsibility to regulate air pollution from stationary and area sources in the State of Nevada. Areas within NDEP's jurisdiction generally attain the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) promulgated under section 109 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). As a result, NDEP is generally required to submit to EPA an applicable State Implementation Plan ( SIP) pursuant to CAA § 110.

NDEP's predecessor agency first submitted an applicable SIP in January 1972, portions of which EPA approved pursuant to CAA § 110( c) on May 31, 1972 at 37 FR 10842. This SIP included various sections of the Nevada Administrative Code ( NAC) and the Nevada Revised Statutes ( NRS). Nevada subsequently adopted and submitted many revisions to these requirements, some of which EPA approved on January 9, 1978 at 43 FR 1342, July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46284, August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43142, and June 18, 1982 at 47 FR 26387. Since 1982, EPA has approved very few revisions to Nevada's applicable SIP despite numerous changes that have been adopted locally. As a result, the version of the rules enforceable by NDEP are often quite different from the SIP version enforceable by EPA.

NDEP submitted a large revision to the applicable SIP on February 16, 2005. The primary purpose of this revision is to clarify and harmonize State and federally enforceable requirements. Because this incorporates so many changes from the 1970s and 1980s vintage SIP rules, EPA has decided to review and act on it in a series of separate actions. This document provides support for proposing approval of a few of the provisions contained in Nevada's February 2005 submittal. We believe these provisions are not controversial and are appropriate to include in EPA's first action on this submittal. Failure to include specific portions of Nevada's February 2005 submittal in this action does not mean we intend to disapprove them.

EPA EVALUATION CRITERIA  The following criteria were used to evaluate the NAC provisions submitted in February 2005 that we are proposing to approve into the SIP:

1. Enforceability  The Bluebook ( Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used as reference documents to determine compliance with the CAA § 110( a)( 2)( A) requirement for enforceability.

2. SIP Relaxation  The revised rules and statutes were reviewed against the current applicable SIP to determine compliance with CAA § 110( l) and § 193.

EPA EVALUATION  Our evaluation of portions of the SIP submittal is summarized below. Numbers starting each paragraph reference the NAC sections submitted for inclusion in the SIP. Numbers in parentheses reference the sections in the previously approved applicable SIP that are being proposed for replacement. In addition to changes discussed below, the submitted rules  3 update the NAC references to Nevada's new numbering systems and incorporate other editorial revisions. In some cases, we are not approving new definitions of terms used in these rules ( e. g., Roaster, used in NAC 445B. 22043), but a definition in the existing applicable SIP still applies. Unless otherwise indicated, we believe the following revisions clarify and improve the applicable SIP and should be federally approved.

NAC Provisions NAC 445B. 001 Definitions ( formerly NAC 445.430)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 002 Act ( formerly NAC 445.432)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 004 Administrator ( formerly NAC 445.433)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 005 Affected Facility ( formerly NAC 445.434)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 006 Affected Source  This new definition refers to the acid rain requirements in the federal regulations.

NAC 445B. 009 Air conditioning equipment ( formerly NAC 445.435)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 011 Air pollution ( formerly NAC 445.437)  This simply references the NRS definition, NRS 445B. 115.

NAC 445B. 018 Ambient air ( formerly NAC 445.441)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 022 Atmosphere ( formerly NAC 445.444)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 030 British thermal units ( formerly NAC 445.457)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 042 Combustible refuse ( formerly NAC 445.472)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 0425 Commission  This new definition simply references an NRS definition, NRS 445B. 120.

NAC 445B. 047 Continuous monitoring system ( formerly NAC 445.480)  No significant change to this definition.  4 NAC 445B. 051 Day ( formerly NAC 445.486)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 053 Director ( formerly NAC 445.488)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 055 Effective date of the program  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules.

NAC 445B. 056 Emergency  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules concerning a situation arising from a sudden and reasonably unforseeable event.

NAC 445B. 058 Emission ( formerly NAC 445.499)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 059 Emission unit ( formerly NAC 445.500)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 060 Enforceable  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules.

NAC 445B. 061 EPA  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules.

NAC 445B. 063 Excess emissions ( formerly 445.504)  The term " air pollutant" has been replaced by the term " regulated air pollutant" which clarifies the intent of the rules.

NAC 445B. 072 Fuel ( formerly NAC 445.516)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 073 Fuel burning equipment ( formerly NAC 445.517)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 075 Fugitive dust ( formerly Article 1.86)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 077 Fugitive emissions ( previously not approved by EPA)  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules. It refers to emissions that do not pass through any opening.

NAC 445B. 080 Garbage ( formerly NAC 445.525)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 084 Hazardous air pollutant  This new definition simply references the NRS definition, NRS 445B. 140.

NAC 445B. 086 Incinerator ( formerly NAC 445.533)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 091 Local air pollution control agency ( formerly NAC 445.537)  No significant change to this definition.  5 NAC 445B. 095 Malfunction ( formerly NAC 445.542)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 097 Maximum allowable throughput  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules. In addition to defining the term, it includes a statement that if more than one interpretation of the term applies, the interpretation which results in the lesser value of allowable emissions applies.

NAC 445B. 103 Monitoring device ( formerly NAC 445.548)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 106 Multiple chamber incinerator ( formerly NAC 445.549)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 109 Nitrogen oxides ( formerly NAC 445.552)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 112 Nonattainment area ( previously not approved by EPA)  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules. It refers to an area which is shown to exceed any NAAQS.

NAC 445B. 113 Nonroad engine  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules and incorporates the definition found in 40 CFR § 89.2 by reference.

NAC 445B. 1135 Nonroad vehicle  Similar discussion as nonroad engine.

NAC 445B. 116 Odor ( formerly NAC 445.555)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 119 One hour period ( formerly NAC 445.556)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 121 Opacity ( formerly NAC 445.557)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 122 Open burning ( formerly NAC 445.558)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 125 Ore ( formerly NAC 445.560)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 127 Owner or operator ( formerly NAC 445.561)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 129 Particulate matter ( formerly NAC 445.562)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 130 Pathological wastes ( formerly NAC 445.563)  No significant change to this definition.  6 NAC 445B. 134 Person ( formerly NAC 445.564)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 135 PM10  This is new definition clarifies the intent of the rules by referencing 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix J and 40 CFR Part 53.

NAC 445B. 144 Process equipment ( formerly NAC 445.581)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 145 Process weight ( formerly NAC 445.584)  Added clarifying language.

NAC 445B. 151 Reference conditions ( formerly NAC 445.589)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 152 Reference method ( formerly NAC 445.590)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 153 Regulated air pollutant  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules and references federal regulations.

NAC 445B. 161 Run ( formerly NAC 445.599)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 163 Salvage operation ( formerly NAC 445.601)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 167 Shutdown ( formerly NAC 445.606)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 168 Single chamber incinerator ( formerly NAC 445.612)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 174 Smoke ( formerly NAC 445.621)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 176 Solid waste ( formerly NAC 445.622)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 177 Source ( formerly Article 1.181)  This simply references an NRS definition, NRS 445B. 155.

NAC 445B. 180 Stack and chimney ( formerly NAC 445.624)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 182 Standard ( formerly Article 1.185)  Added clarifying language to this definition.

NAC 445B. 185 Start up ( formerly NAC 445.627)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 196 Toxic regulated air pollutant  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules. It refers to substances designated by the " Commission" and does not include EPA.  7 NAC 445B. 198 Uncombined water ( formerly NAC 445.627)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 205 Waste ( formerly NAC 445.651)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 207 Wet garbage ( formerly NAC 445.653)  No significant change to this definition.

NAC 445B. 209 Year  This new definition clarifies the intent of the rules.

NAC 445B. 211 Abbreviations ( formerly NAC 445.655)  The definition simply lists several commonly used abbreviations, such as BACT, Btu, and C. F. R.

NAC 445B. 2204 Sulfur emission ( formerly NAC 445.742)  This rule simply defines a term and does not change the applicable SIP.

NAC 445B. 22043 Sulfur emissions: Calculation of total feed sulfur ( formerly NAC 445.743)  This rule describes how total feed sulfur must be calculated and does not change the applicable SIP.

NAC 445B. 22047 Sulfur emissions: Fuel burning equipment ( formerly Article 8.2)  This rule provides equations that establish sulfur compound emission limits from fuel burning equipment. The previously approved rule contained both equations and tables of emission limits. Changes include now referring to " emission unit" rather than " source."

NAC 445B. 2205 Sulfur emissions: Other processes which emit sulfur ( formerly NAC 445.746)  This rule controls sulfur emissions from sources where the sulfur originates in the material being processed. The rule has been revised to exclude hydrogen sulfide from the definition of sulfur compound emissions. Since hydrogen sulfide does not contribute to pollution covered by a NAAQS, hydrogen sulfide controls are not needed in the SIP.

NAC 445B. 22067 Open Burning ( formerly NAC 445.753)  This rule allows open burning in certain situations if approved in advance by the Director of the Nevada State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Editorial changes have been made to avoid duplication in listing areas where burning is prohibited. Paragraph 2( b) is a new provision and references NAC 444.640, which is not in the SIP. This revision seems to strengthen the previously broad exemption in the SIP for any burning approved by the Director.

NAC 445B. 2207 Incinerator burning ( formerly NAC 445.754)  This rule establishes design requirements and emission limits for incinerators. Revisions include reference to PM 10 rather than PM. The citations referenced in paragraph 4, ( NAC 445B. 22027 to 445B. 22037) are not being approved into the SIP at this time. The citations are not necessary for the rule to be enforceable as it is still generally clear which incinerator units are exempt from the requirements. The rule has been strengthened by revising the PM 10 emission limit for incinerators of less than 2,000 pounds per hour rated burning capacity from 3 pounds/ ton to 1.8 pounds/ ton.  8 NAC 445B. 2209 Reduction of animal matter ( formerly NAC 445.845)  This rule limits the reduction of animal matter by incineration under certain conditions. Revisions include removal of director discretion. The submitted rule is an improvement over the existing SIP rule.

NAC 445B. 22097 Standards of quality for ambient air ( formerly NAC 445.843)  This section lists the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. Revisions include replacing the particulate matter standard with PM 10, removing the Nevada standard for visibility and adding the State standard for hydrogen sulfide. Note D allows substitution of certain test methods in determining compliance with the standards. The table is appropriate for inclusion in the SIP.

NAC 445B. 230 Plan for reduction of emissions ( formerly NAC 445.666)  This rule is intended to comply with air pollution emergency episode plan requirements described in CAA § 110( a)( 2)( G), § 303 and 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart H and Appendix L. The rule has been revised to clarify the delivery requirements of the written notice.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 2907]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC11-6-016]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 29, 2022, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation submitted an annual report on the Find, Fix,
Track and Compliance Exception programs, in accordance with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Orders.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 138 FERC ] 61,193
(2012); N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 143 FERC ] 61,253 (2013); N.
Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 148 FERC ] 61,214 (2014); N. Am. Elec.
Reliability Corp., Docket No. RC11-6-004 (Nov. 13, 2015) (delegated
letter order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 24, 2023.

    Dated: January 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00772 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31132-31133]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10940]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0155; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wiggins, MS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Dean Griffin
Memorial Airport, Wiggins, MS. Controlled airspace is necessary to
accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed at
Dean Griffin Memorial Airport, for the safety and management of
instrument flight ruled (IFR) operations.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 14427; March 12, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0155 to
propose established Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Dean Griffin Memorial Airport, Wiggins, MS.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15,
2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15,
2021. FAA Order 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11F lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing the Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-
mile radius of Dean Griffin Memorial Airport, Wiggins, MS, excluding
that airspace within Desoto 1 and Desoto 2 MOAs, when active. This
action will enhance safety and the management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and
effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASO MS E5 Wiggins, MS [Establish]

Dean Griffin Memorial Airport, MS
    (Lat. 30[deg]54'35'' N, long. 089[deg]09'41'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Dean Griffin Memorial Airport excluding
that airspace within Desoto 1 and Desoto 2 MOAs, when active.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 16, 2022.
Martin Skinner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-10940 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35283]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2215-000]

Peoples Natural Gas; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Peoples Natural Gas's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 19, 2021.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 28, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14243 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

I. Step 9: Calculate Revised Base Rates

    In this step, we revise the base rates so that once the impact of
the weighting factors are considered, the total cost of pilotage will
be equal to the revenue needed. To do this, we divide the initial base
rates, calculated in Step 7, by the average weighting factors
calculated in Step 8, as shown in Table 35.

                                          Table 35--Revised Base Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Revised rate
                                                                                Average     (initial rate/
                              Area                                 Initial rate      weighting        average
                                                                     (Step 7)      factor  (Step     weighting
                                                                                8)            factor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One: Designated........................................            $796            1.28            $622
District One: Undesignated......................................             550            1.30             424
District Two: Designated........................................             730            1.32             553
District Two: Undesignated......................................             597            1.32             424
District Three: Designated......................................             673            1.30             517
District Three: Undesignated....................................             330            1.30             253
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Step 10: Review and Finalize Rates

    In this step, the Director reviews the rates set forth by the
staffing model and ensures that they meet the goal of ensuring safe,
efficient, and reliable pilotage. Because, as detailed in the
discussion sections of this NPRM, the proposed rates incorporate
appropriate compensation for enough pilots to handle heavy traffic
periods, would cover operating expenses and infrastructure costs, and
have taken average traffic and weighting factors into consideration, we
believe that they do meet the goal of ensuring safe, efficient, and
reliable pilotage. Thus, we are not proposing any alterations to the
rates in this step. The final rates are shown in Table 36, and we
propose to modify the text in Sec.  401.405(a) to reflect them.

                                              Table 36--Final Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2017 Pilotage   Proposed 2018
                     Area                                     Name                     rate        pilotage rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One: Designated......................  St. Lawrence River..............            $601            $622
District One: Undesignated....................  Lake Ontario....................             408             424
District Two: Undesignated....................  Lake Erie.......................             429             454
District Two: Designated......................  Navigable waters from Southeast              580             553
                                                 Shoal to Port Huron, MI.
District Three: Undesignated..................  Lakes Huron, Michigan, and                   218             253
                                                 Superior.
District Three: Designated....................  St. Mary's River................             514             517
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Surcharges

    Because there are several applicant pilots in 2018, we are
proposing to levy surcharges to cover the costs needed for training
expenses. Consistent with previous years, we are proposing to assign a
cost of $150,000 per applicant pilot. To develop the surcharge, we
multiply the number of applicant pilots by the average cost per pilot
to develop a total amount of training costs needed, and then impose
that amount as a surcharge to all areas in the respective district,
consisting of a percentage of revenue needed. In this year, there are
two applicant pilots for District One, one applicant pilot for District
Two, and four applicant pilots for District Three. The calculations to
develop the surcharges are shown in Table 37. We note that while the
percentages are rounded for simplicity, such rounding does not impact
the revenue generated, as surcharges can no longer be collected once
the surcharge total has been attained.

                                        Table 37--Surcharge Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   District One    District Two   District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of applicant pilots......................................               2               1               4
Total applicant training costs..................................        $300,000        $150,000        $600,000
Revenue needed (Step 6).........................................      $7,409,244      $6,754,605      $8,274,933
Total surcharge as percentage (total training costs/revenue)....              4%              2%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 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 (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because
this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, this
proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
See OMB's Memorandum titled, ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2
of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (February 2, 2017). A regulatory
analysis (RA) follows.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose new base pilotage
rates and surcharges for training. This proposed rule also makes
changes to the ratemaking methodology and revises the compensation
benchmark. The last full ratemaking was concluded in 2017.
    Table 38 summarizes the regulatory changes that are expected to
have no costs, and any qualitative benefits associated with them. The
table also includes proposed changes that affect portions of the
methodology for calculating the proposed base pilotage rates. While
these proposed changes affect the calculation of the rate, the costs of
these changes are captured in the changes to the total revenue as a
result of the proposed rate change (summarized in Table 39).

             Table 38--Regulatory Changes With No Cost or Costs Captured in the Proposed Rate Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Proposed change                   Description           Basis for no costs            Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codification of compensation           Add regulatory text to   Pilot compensation       --Pilot compensation
 inflation adjustment.                  Sec.   404.104 to make   costs are accounted      would keep up with
                                        the adjustment for       for in the base          regional inflation.
                                        inflation automatic.     pilotage rates.         --Improves consistency,
                                                                                transparency, and
                                                                                efficiency in our
                                                                                ratemaking procedures.
Target pilot compensation............  --Due to the 2016 court  Pilot compensation       Improves transparency
                                        opinion on pilot         costs are accounted      in our ratemaking
                                        compensation, the        for in the base          procedures.
                                        Coast Guard is           pilotage rates.
                                        changing the pilot
                                        compensation benchmark.
Relocation of staffing model           Move the discussion of   We are not proposing to  Improve the clarity of
 regulations.                           the staffing model       adjust or modify the     the regulations and
                                        from 46 CFR 404.103      regulatory text, but     improve the regulatory
                                        (as part of ``Step 3''   simply move it to Sec.   process.
                                        of the ratemaking          401.220.
                                        process), to the
                                        general regulations
                                        governing pilotage in
                                        Sec.   401.420.
Delineation of full ratemakings and    Set forth separate       Change only clarifies    Simplify ratemaking
 annual reviews.                        regulatory paragraphs    that the benchmark       procedures in interim
                                        detailing the            level compensation       years and better
                                        differences between      will only be             effect the statutory
                                        how the Coast Guard      reconsidered during      mandate in section
                                        undertakes an annual     ``full ratemaking''      9303(f) of the Great
                                        adjustment of the        years.                   Lakes Pilotage Act.
                                        pilotage rates, and a
                                        full reassessment of
                                        the rates, which must
                                        be undertaken once
                                        every 5 years.
Miscellaneous other changes..........  --Rename the step        Minor editorial changes  Provides clarification
                                        currently titled         in this NPRM that do     to regulatory text and
                                        ``Initially calculate    not impact total         the rulemaking.
                                        base rates'' to          revenues.
                                        ``Calculate initial
                                        base rates'' for style
                                        purposes.
                                       --Adjust the reference
                                        to the staffing model
                                        in Step 7 to account
                                        for its relocation in
                                        text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 39 summarizes the affected population, costs, and benefits of
the rate changes that are expected to have costs associated with them.

                                 Table 39--Economic Impacts Due to Rate Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Affected
         Proposed change              Description         population             Costs             Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate Changes....................  Under the Great     Owners and          $1,162,401--Due to  --New rates cover
                                   Lakes Pilotage      operators of 215    change in Revenue   an association's
                                   Act of 1960, the    vessels             Needed for 2018     necessary and
                                   Coast Guard is      journeying the      ($23,488,782)       reasonable
                                   required to         Great Lakes         from Revenue        operating
                                   review and adjust   system annually,    Needed for 2017     expenses.
                                   base pilotage       49 U.S. Great       ($22,326,381) as   --Provides fair
                                   rates annually.     Lakes pilots, and   shown in Table 40   compensation,
                                                       3 pilotage          below.              adequate
                                                       associations.                           training, and
                                                                                sufficient rest
                                                                                periods for
                                                                                pilots.
                                                                                --Ensures the
                                                                                association
                                                                                receives
                                                                                sufficient
                                                                                revenues to fund
                                                                                future
                                                                                improvements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on
the Great Lakes annually. See sections IV and V of this preamble for
detailed discussions of the legal basis and purpose for this rulemaking
and for background information on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking.
Based on our annual review for this proposed rulemaking, we propose
adjusting the pilotage rates for the 2018 shipping season to generate
sufficient revenues for each district to reimburse its necessary and
reasonable operating expenses, fairly compensate trained and rested
pilots, and provide an appropriate working capital fund to use for
improvements. The rate changes in this proposed rule would, if
codified, lead to an increase in the cost per unit of service to
shippers in all three districts, and result in an estimated annual cost
increase to shippers.
    In addition to the increase in payments that would be incurred by
shippers in all three districts from the previous year as a result of
the proposed rate changes, we propose authorizing a temporary surcharge
to allow the pilotage associations to recover training expenses that
would be incurred in 2018. For 2018, we anticipate that there will be
two applicant pilots in District One, one applicant pilot in District
Two, and four applicant pilots in District Three. With a training cost
of $150,000 per pilot, we estimate that Districts One, Two, and Three
will incur $300,000, $150,000, and $600,000 in training expenses,
respectively. These temporary surcharges would generate a combined
$1,050,000 in revenue for the pilotage associations. Therefore, after
accounting for the implementation of the temporary surcharges across
all three districts, the total payments that would be made by shippers
during the 2018 shipping season are estimated at approximately
$1,162,401 more than the total payments that were estimated in 2017
(Table 40).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Total payments across all three districts are equal to the
increase in payments incurred by shippers as a result of the rate
changes plus the temporary surcharges applied to traffic in
Districts One, Two, and Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A detailed discussion of our economic impact analysis follows.

Affected Population

    The shippers affected by these rate changes are those owners and
operators of domestic vessels operating ``on register'' (employed in
foreign trade) and owners and operators of non-Canadian foreign vessels
on routes within the Great Lakes system. These owners and operators
must have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302.
There is no minimum tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. The
statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational
vessels. United States-flagged vessels not operating on register and
Canadian ``lakers,'' which account for most commercial shipping on the
Great Lakes, are not required by 46 U.S.C. 9302 to have pilots.
However, these U.S.- and Canadian-flagged lakers may voluntarily choose
to engage a Great Lakes registered pilot. Vessels that are U.S.-flagged
may opt to have a pilot for varying reasons, such as unfamiliarity with
designated waters and ports, or for insurance purposes.
    We used billing information from the years 2014 through 2016 from
the Great Lakes Pilotage Management System (GLPMS) to estimate the
average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment. The
GLPMS tracks data related to managing and coordinating the dispatch of
pilots on the Great Lakes, and billing in accordance with the services.
We found that a total of 387 vessels used pilotage services during the
years 2014 through 2016. That is, these vessels had a pilot dispatched
to the vessel, and billing information was recorded in the GLPMS. The
number of invoices per vessel ranged from a minimum of 1 invoice per
year to a maximum of 108 invoices per year. Of these vessels, 367 were
foreign-flagged vessels and 20 were U.S.-flagged. As previously stated,
U.S.-flagged vessels not operating on register are not required to have
a registered pilot per 46 U.S.C. 9302, but they can voluntarily choose
to have one.
    Vessel traffic is affected by numerous factors and varies from year
to year. Therefore, rather than the total number of vessels over the
time period, an average of the unique vessels using pilotage services
from the years 2014 through 2016 is the best representation of vessels
estimated to be affected by the rate proposed in this NPRM. From the
years 2014 through 2016, an average of 215 vessels used pilotage
services annually.\47\ On average, 206 of these vessels were foreign-
flagged vessels and 9 were U.S.-flagged vessels that voluntarily opted
into the pilotage service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Some vessels entered the Great Lakes multiple times in a
single year, affecting the average number of unique vessels
utilizing pilotage services in any given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Cost to Shippers

    The rate changes resulting from the new methodology would generate
costs to industry in the form of higher payments for shippers. We
estimate the effect of the rate changes on shippers by comparing the
total projected revenues needed to cover costs in 2017 with the total
projected revenues to cover costs in 2018, including any temporary
surcharges we have authorized. We set pilotage rates so that pilot
associations receive enough revenue to cover their necessary and
reasonable expenses. Shippers pay these rates when they

have a pilot as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. Therefore, the aggregate
payments of shippers to pilot associations are equal to the projected
necessary revenues for pilot associations. The revenues each year
represent the total costs that shippers must pay for pilotage services,
and the change in revenue from the previous year is the additional cost
to shippers discussed in this proposed rule.
    The impacts of the proposed rate changes on shippers are estimated
from the District pilotage projected revenues (shown in Tables 20
through 22 of this preamble) and the proposed surcharges described in
section VIII of this preamble. We estimate that for the 2018 shipping
season, the projected revenue needed for all three districts is
$22,438,782. Temporary surcharges on traffic in Districts One, Two, and
Three would be applied for the duration of the 2018 season in order for
the pilotage associations to recover training expenses incurred for
applicant pilots. We estimate that the pilotage associations would
require an additional $300,000, $150,000, and $600,000 in revenue for
applicant training expenses in Districts One, Two, and Three,
respectively. This would be an additional cost to shippers of
$1,050,000 during the 2018 shipping season. Adding the projected
revenue of $22,438,782 to the proposed surcharges, we estimate the
pilotage associations' total projected revenue needed for 2018 would be
$23,488,782. To estimate the additional cost to shippers from this
proposed rule, we compare the 2018 total projected revenues to the 2017
projected revenues. Because we review and prescribe rates for the Great
Lakes Pilotage annually, the effects are estimated as a single year
cost rather than annualized over a 10-year period. In the 2017
rulemaking,\48\ we estimated the total projected revenue needed for
2017, including surcharges, as $22,326,381. This is the best
approximation of 2017 revenues as, at the time of this publication, we
do not have enough audited data available for the 2017 shipping season
to revise these projections. Table 40 shows the revenue projections for
2017 and 2018 and details the additional cost increases to shippers by
area and district as a result of the rate changes and temporary
surcharges on traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 Great Lakes
Pilotage Ratemaking final rule (82 FR 41484 and 41489), Tables 9 and
14.

                                               Table 40--Effect of the Proposed Rule by Area and District
                                                                 [$U.S.; non-discounted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Total 2017                                      Total 2018      Additional
                  Area                    Revenue needed  2017 Temporary     projected    Revenue needed  2018 Temporary     projected     costs of this
                                              in 2017        surcharge        revenue         in 2018        surcharge        revenue      proposed rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, District One.....................      $7,109,019              $0      $7,109,019      $7,409,244        $300,000      $7,709,244        $600,225
Total, District Two.....................       6,633,491         300,000       6,933,491       6,754,605         150,000       6,904,605        (28,886)
Total, District Three...................       7,233,871       1,050,000       8,283,871       8,274,933         600,000       8,874,933         591,062
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    System Total........................      20,976,381       1,350,000      22,326,381      22,438,782       1,050,000      23,488,782       1,162,401
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2017 and
the projected revenue in 2018 is the proposed annual change in payments
from shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change that would be
imposed by this rule. The effect of the proposed rate change to
shippers varies by area and district. The rate changes, after taking
into account the increase in pilotage rates and the addition of
temporary surcharges, would lead to affected shippers operating in
District One and District Three experiencing an increase in payments of
$600,225 and $591,062, respectively, over the previous year, and a
decrease in payments of $28,886 in District 2. The overall adjustment
in payments would be an increase in payments by shippers of
approximately $1,162,401 across all three districts (a 5 percent
increase over 2017). Again, because we review and set rates for Great
Lakes Pilotage annually, the impacts are estimated as single year costs
rather than annualized over a 10-year period.
    Table 41 shows the difference in revenue by component from 2017 to
2018.\49\ The majority of the increase in revenue is due to the
inflation of operating expenses and to the addition of four pilots who
were authorized in the 2017 rule. These four pilots are training this
year and will become full-time working pilots at the beginning of the
2018 shipping season. They would be compensated at the target
compensation of $319,617 per pilot. The addition of these pilots to
full working status accounts for $1,278,468 of the increase ($677,898
when also including the effect of decreasing compensation for 45
pilots). The remaining amount is attributed to decreases in the working
capital fund and differences in the surcharges from 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 final rule
(82 FR 41484 and 41489), tables 9 and 14. The 2018 projected
revenues are from tables 20-22 of this NPRM.

                                  Table 41--Difference in Revenue by Component
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Difference
                                                                  Revenue needed  Revenue needed  (2018 Revenue-
                        Revenue component                             in 2017         in 2018      2017 Revenue)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses.....................................      $5,155,280      $5,983,199        $827,919
Total Target Pilot Compensation.................................      14,983,335      15,661,233         677,898
Working Capital Fund............................................         837,766         794,350        (43,416)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Total Revenue Needed, without Surcharge.........................      20,976,381      22,438,782       1,462,401
Surcharge.......................................................       1,350,000       1,050,000       (300,000)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

    Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge........................      22,326,381      23,488,782       1,162,401
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilotage Rates as a Percentage of Vessel Operating Costs

    To estimate the impact of U.S. pilotage costs on foreign-flagged
vessels that would be affected by the rate adjustment, we looked at the
pilotage costs as a percentage of a vessel's costs for an entire
voyage. The portion of the trip on the Great Lakes using a pilot is
only a portion of the whole trip. The affected vessels are often
traveling from a foreign port, and the days without a pilot on the
total trip often exceed the days a pilot is needed.
    To estimate this impact, we used the 2017 study titled, ``Analysis
of Great Lakes Pilotage Costs on Great Lakes Shipping and the Potential
Impact of Increases in U.S. Pilotage Charges.'' \50\ We conducted the
study to explore additional frameworks and methodologies for assessing
the cost of Great Lakes pilot's ratemaking regulations, with a focus on
capturing industry and port level economic impacts. The study also
included an analysis of the pilotage costs as a percentage of the total
voyage costs that we can use in RAs to estimate the direct impact of
changes to the pilotage rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The study is available at http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Marine-Transportation-Systems-CG-5PW/Office-of-Waterways-and-Ocean-Policy/Office-of-Waterways-and-Ocean-Policy-Great-Lakes-Pilotage-Div/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The study developed a voyage cost model that is based on a vessel's
daily costs. The daily costs included: Capital repayment costs; fuel
costs; operating costs (such as crew, supplies, and insurance); port
costs; speed of the vessel; stevedoring rates; and tolls. The daily
operating costs were translated into total voyage costs using mileage
between the ports for a number of voyage scenarios. In the study, the
total voyage costs were then compared to the U.S. pilotage costs. The
study found that, using the 2016 rates, the U.S. pilotage charges
represent 10 percent of the total voyage costs for a vessel carrying
grain, and between 8 percent and 9 percent of the total voyage costs
for a vessel carrying steel.\51\ We updated the analysis to estimate
the percentage U.S. pilotage charges represent using the percentage
increase in revenues from the years 2016 to 2018. Since the study used
2016 as the latest year of data, we compared the revenues needed in
2018 and 2017 to the 2016 revenues in order to estimate the change in
pilotage costs as a percentage of total voyage costs from 2017 to 2018.
Table 42 shows the revenues needed for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Martin Associates, ``Analysis of Great Lakes Pilotage Costs
on Great Lakes Shipping and the Potential Impact of Increases in
U.S. Pilotage Charges,'' page 33.
    \52\ The 2016 projected revenues are from the 2016 final rule,
81 FR 11938. Figure 32, projected revenue needed in 2016 plus the
temporary surcharge ($17,453,678 + $1,650,000 = $19,103,678).
    \53\ The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 final rule,
82 FR 41484 and 41489, tables 9 and 14.

                                Table 42--Revenue Needed in 2016, 2017, and 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Revenue needed  Revenue needed  Revenue needed
                        Revenue component                          in 2016 \52\    in 2017 \53\       in 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge............................     $19,103,678     $22,326,381     $23,488,782
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2016 to 2017, the total revenues needed increased by 17
percent. From 2017 to 2018, the proposed total revenues needed would
increase by 5 percent. From 2016 to 2018, the total revenues needed
would increase by 23 percent. While the change in total voyage cost
would vary by the trip, vessel class, and whether the vessel is
carrying steel or grain, we used these percentages as an average
increase to estimate the change in the impact. When we increased the
pilotage charges by 17 percent from 2016, we found the U.S. pilotage
costs represented an average of 11.3 percent of the total voyage costs.
We then increased the base 2016 rates by 23 percent. With this proposed
rule's rates for 2018, pilotage costs are estimated to account for 11.8
percent of the total voyage costs, or a 0.5 percent increase over the
percentage that U.S. pilotage costs represented of the total voyage in
2017.
    It is important to note that this analysis is based on a number of
assumptions. The purpose of the study was to look at the impact of the
U.S. pilotage rates. The study did not include an analysis of the GLPA
rates. It was assumed that a U.S. pilot is assigned to all portions of
a voyage where he or she could be assigned. In reality, the assignment
of a United States or Canadian pilot is based on the order in which a
vessel enters the system, as outlined in the Memorandum of
Understanding between the GLPA and the Coast Guard.
    This analysis only looks at the impact of proposed U.S. pilotage
cost changes. All other costs were held constant at the 2016 levels,
including Canadian pilotage costs, tolls, stevedoring, and port
charges. This analysis estimates the impacts of Great Lakes pilotage
rates holding all other factors constant. If other factors or sectors
were not held constant but, instead, were allowed to adjust or
fluctuate, it is likely that the impact of pilotage rates would be
different. Many factors that drive the tonnage levels of foreign cargo
on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway were held constant for this
analysis. These factors include, but are not limited to, demand for
steel and grain, construction levels in the regions, tariffs, exchange
rates, weather conditions, crop production, rail and alternative route
pricing, tolls, vessel size restriction on the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Seaway, and inland waterway river levels.

Benefits

    This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to meet the
requirements in

46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage services on the Great
Lakes. The rate changes would promote safe, efficient, and reliable
pilotage service on the Great Lakes by: (1) Ensuring that rates cover
an association's operating expenses; (2) providing fair pilot
compensation, adequate training, and sufficient rest periods for
pilots; and (3) ensuring the association produces enough revenue to
fund future improvements. The rate changes would also help recruit and
retain pilots, which would ensure a sufficient number of pilots to meet
peak shipping demand, which would help reduce delays caused by pilot
shortages.

B. 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
effect 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 people.
    For the proposed rule, we reviewed recent company size and
ownership data for the vessels identified in the GLPMS and we reviewed
business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources
such as MANTA \54\ and ReferenceUSA.\55\ As described in Section IX.A
of this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found that a total
of 387 unique vessels used pilotage services from 2014 through 2016.
These vessels are owned by 59 entities. We found that of the 59
entities that own or operate vessels engaged in trade on the Great
Lakes affected by this proposed rule, 48 are foreign entities that
operate primarily outside the United States. The remaining 11 entities
are U.S. entities. We compared the revenue and employee data found in
the company search to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Table
of Small Business Size Standards \56\ to determine how many of these
companies are small entities. Table 43 shows the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of the U.S. entities and
the small entity standard size established by the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See http://www.manta.com/.
    \55\ See http://resource.referenceusa.com/.
    \56\ Source: https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/table-small-business-size-standards. SBA has established a Table of Small
Business Size Standards, which is matched to NAICS industries. A
size standard, which is usually stated in number of employees or
average annual receipts (``revenues''), represents the largest size
that a business (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) may be
considered in order to remain classified as a small business for SBA
and Federal contracting programs.

         Table 43--NAICS Codes and Small Entities Size Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Small business size
         NAICS                Description                standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
238910................  Site Preparation         $15 million.
                         Contractors.
483211................  Inland Water Freight     750 employees.
                         Transportation.
483212................  Inland Water Passenger   500 employees.
                         Transportation.
487210................  Scenic & Sightseeing     $7.5 million.
                         Transportation, Water.
488320................  Marine Cargo Handling..  $38.5 million.
488330................  Navigational Services    $38.5 million.
                         to Shipping.
488510................  Freight Transportation   $15 million.
                         Arrangement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The entities all exceed the SBA's small business standards for
small businesses. Further, these U.S. entities operate U.S.-flagged
vessels and are not required to have pilots as required by 46 U.S.C.
9302.
    In addition to the owners and operators of vessels affected by this
proposed rule, there are three U.S. entities affected by the proposed
rule that receive revenue from pilotage services. These are the three
pilot associations that provide and manage pilotage services within the
Great Lakes districts. Two of the associations operate as partnerships
and one operates as a corporation. These associations are designated
with the same NAICS industry classification and small-entity size
standards described above, but they have fewer than 500 employees;
combined, they have approximately 65 employees in total. We expect no
adverse effect on these entities from this proposed rule because all
associations would receive enough revenue to balance the projected
expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours (time on
task) and pilots.
    We did not find any small not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields.
We did not find any small governmental jurisdictions with populations
of fewer than 50,000 people. Based on this analysis, we found this
proposed rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect a substantial
number of small entities.
    Therefore, we certify 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. If you think that your business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please
submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies, and how
and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Mike Moyers,
Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone
202-372-1533, email [email protected], or fax<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.
    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).

D. 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). This
proposed rule would not change the burden in the collection currently
approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes
Pilotage Methodology.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements as described in E.O. 13132. Our
analysis follows.
    Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges
for pilotage services.'' See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is
issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of State law as
specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ``State or
political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any
requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' As a result, States or
local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this
category. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of
federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and
preemptive effect, E.O. 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult
with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you
believe this rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section
of this preamble.

F. 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we discuss the effects of this proposed
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O.
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would 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.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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 E.O. because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under E.O. 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 E.O.
13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, 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 procedures; and related management systems 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.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Directive 023-01, Revision (Rev) 01, Implementation of
the National Environmental Policy Act [DHS Instruction Manual 023-01
(series)] and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this
preamble. This proposed rule meets the criteria for categorical
exclusion (CATEX) under paragraph A3 of Table 1, particularly subparts
(a), (b), and (c) in Appendix A of DHS Directive 023-01(series). CATEX
A3 pertains to promulgation of rules and procedures that are: (a)
Strictly administrative or procedural in nature; (b) that implement,
without substantive change, statutory or regulatory requirements; or
(c) that implement, without substantive change, procedures, manuals,
and other guidance documents. This proposed rule adjusts base pilotage
rates and surcharges for administering the 2018 shipping season in
accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates, and also
proposes several

minor changes to the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 404

    Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows:

Title 46--Shipping

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303,
9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).

0
 2. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  401.220 to read as follows:

Sec.  401.220   Registration of pilots.

    (a) The Director shall determine the number of pilots required to
be registered in order to assure adequate and efficient pilotage
service in the United States waters of the Great Lakes and to provide
for equitable participation of United States Registered Pilots with
Canadian Registered Pilots in the rendering of pilotage services. The
Director determines the number of pilots needed as follows:
    (1) The Director determines the base number of pilots needed by
dividing each area's peak pilotage demand data by its pilot work cycle.
The pilot work cycle standard includes any time that the Director finds
to be a necessary and reasonable component of ensuring that a pilotage
assignment is carried out safely, efficiently, and reliably for each
area. These components may include but are not limited to--
    (i) Amount of time a pilot provides pilotage service or is
available to a vessel's master to provide pilotage service;
    (ii) Pilot travel time, measured from the pilot's base, to and from
an assignment's starting and ending points;
    (iii) Assignment delays and detentions;
    (iv) Administrative time for a pilot who serves as a pilotage
association's president;
    (v) Rest between assignments, as required by 46 CFR 401.451;
    (vi) Ten days' recuperative rest per month from April 15 through
November 15 each year, provided that lesser rest allowances are
approved by the Director at the pilotage association's request, if
necessary to provide pilotage without interruption through that period;
and
    (vii) Pilotage-related training.
    (2) Pilotage demand and the base seasonal work standard are based
on available and reliable data, as so deemed by the Director, for a
multi-year base period. The multi-year period is the 10 most recent
full shipping seasons, and the data source is a system approved under
46 CFR 403.300. Where such data are not available or reliable, the
Director also may use data, from additional past full shipping seasons
or other sources, that the Director determines to be available and
reliable.
    (3) The number of pilots needed in each district is calculated by
totaling the area results by district and rounding them to the nearest
whole integer. For supportable circumstances, the Director may make
reasonable and necessary adjustments to the rounded result to provide
for changes that the Director anticipates will affect the need for
pilots in the district over the period for which base rates are being
established.
* * * * *
0
 3. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  401.405 to read as follows:
    (a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on--
    (1) The St. Lawrence River is $622;
    (2) Lake Ontario is $424;
    (3) Lake Erie is $454;
    (4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is
$553;
    (5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $253; and
    (6) The St. Mary's River is $517.
* * * * *

PART 404--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATEMAKING

0
 4. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).

0
5. Revise Sec.  404.100 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.100   Ratemaking and annual reviews in general.

    (a) The Director establishes base pilotage rates by a full
ratemaking pursuant to Sec. Sec.  404.101 through 404.110 of this part,
which is conducted at least once every 5 years and completed by March 1
of the first year for which the base rates will be in effect. Base
rates will be set to meet the goal specified in Sec.  404.1(a) of this
part.
    (b) In the interim years preceding the next scheduled full rate
review, the Director will adjust base pilotage rates by an interim
ratemaking pursuant to Sec. Sec.  404.101 through 404.110 of this part.
    (c) Each year, the Director will announce whether the Coast Guard
will conduct a full ratemaking or interim ratemaking procedure.
0
6. Revise Sec.  404.103 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.103   Ratemaking step 3: Estimate number of working pilots.

    The Director projects, based on the number of persons applying
under 46 CFR part 401 to become U.S. Great Lakes registered pilots, and
on information provided by the district's pilotage association, the
number of pilots expected to be fully working and compensated.
0
7. Revise Sec.  404.104 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.104   Ratemaking step 4: Determine target pilot compensation
benchmark.

    (a) In a full ratemaking year, the Director determines base
individual target pilot compensation using a compensation benchmark,
set after considering the most relevant currently available non-
proprietary information. For supportable circumstances, the Director
may make necessary and reasonable adjustments to the benchmark.
    (b) In an interim year, the Director adjusts the previous year's
individual target pilot compensation level by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region, or if that is
unavailable, the Federal Open Market Committee median economic
projections for Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation.
    (c) The Director determines each pilotage association's total
target pilot compensation by multiplying individual target pilot
compensation computed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section by the
number of pilots projected under Sec.  404.103(d) of this part, or
Sec.  401.220(a) of this part, whichever is lower.
0
8. Revise Sec.  404.107 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.107   Ratemaking step 7: Calculate initial base rates.

    (a) The Director calculates initial base hourly rates by dividing
the projected needed revenue from Sec.  404.106 of this part by
averages of past hours worked in each district's designated and
undesignated waters, using available and reliable data for a multi-year
period set in accordance with Sec.  401.220(a) of this part.

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2018-00781 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P