[Federal Register: November 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 64521-64523]
[DOCID:fr02no06-38]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0407; FRL-8238-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Information Collection Activities
Associated With EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and
Industrial Sectors (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1772.04, OMB Control No.
2060-0347

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 4,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0407, to: (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for

current information on docket operations, locations and telephone
numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the
procedure for submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are

not affected by the flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Susan Bailey, Climate Protection
Partnerships Division, Mailcode: 6202J, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31179), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0407, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Information Collection Activities Associated with EPA's
ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1772.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0347.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on November
30, 2006. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program helping businesses and
individuals protect the environment through superior energy efficiency.
The Program focuses on reducing utility-generated emissions by reducing
the demand for energy. In 1991, EPA launched the Green Lights program
to encourage corporations, State and local governments, colleges and
universities, and other organizations to adopt energy-efficient
lighting as a profitable means of preventing pollution and improving
lighting quality. Since then, EPA has rolled Green Lights into ENERGY
STAR and expanded ENERGY STAR to encompass organization-wide energy
performance improvement, such as building technology upgrades, product
purchasing initiatives, and employee training. At the same time, EPA
has streamlined the reporting requirements of ENERGY STAR and focused
on providing incentives for improvements (e.g., ENERGY STAR Awards
Program). EPA also makes tools and other resources available over the
Web to help the public overcome the barriers to evaluating their energy
performance and investing in profitable improvements.
    To join ENERGY STAR, organizations are asked to complete a
Partnership Letter or Agreement that establishes their commitment to
energy efficiency. Partners agree to undertake efforts such as
baselining, tracking, and benchmarking their organization's energy
performance by using tools such as those offered by ENERGY STAR;
developing and implementing a plan to improve energy performance in
their facilities and operations by following the energy management
strategy provided by ENERGY STAR; and educating staff and the public
about their Partnership with ENERGY STAR, and highlighting achievements
with the ENERGY STAR, where available.
    Partners also may be asked to periodically submit information to
EPA as needed to assist in program implementation. For example, EPA
maintains the Service and Product Provider Directory to provide the
public with easy access to energy efficiency services and products that
can help companies lower operating costs and increase their bottom
line. Businesses wishing to appear in this directory are asked to
submit a completed profile that details their services and products.
    Partnership in ENERGY STAR is voluntary and can be terminated by
Partners or EPA at any time. EPA does not expect organizations to join
the program unless they expect participation to be cost-effective and
otherwise beneficial for them.
    In addition, Partners and any other interested party can help EPA
promote energy-efficient technologies by evaluating the efficiency of
their buildings using EPA's on-line tools (e.g., Portfolio Manager) and
applying for recognition.
    If a claim of confidential business information (CBI) is asserted,
EPA will manage that information in accordance with EPA's provisions on
confidentiality.
    Burden Statement: The annual public recordkeeping and reporting
burden for joining the ENERGY STAR program and related activities is
expected to vary depending on the type of Partner. The burden per
Partner is expected to range from about 2 hours for a Commercial and
Industrial Sector Partner to prepare/submit a Partnership Letter to 7
hours for an Energy Efficiency Program Sponsor to prepare/submit a
Partnership Agreement and related information (e.g., a brief plan
outlining the key activities it intends to undertake to cooperatively
promote ENERGY STAR in the commercial and/or industrial markets). These
burden estimates include the time for reading the instructions and
requirements, gathering information, and preparing/submitting the
information to EPA. The burden for benchmarking in Portfolio Manager is
estimated to vary depending on the type of benchmarking method. The
burden per respondent for manual benchmarking is estimated to be 30
minutes to read Portfolio Manager instructions, 5 hours to gather and
enter building data for a new benchmark, and 1.5 hours to perform a
repeat benchmark. The burden per respondent for the import tool is
estimated to be 30 minutes for reading the Portfolio Manager
instructions and 1 hour for

collecting building data, downloading it into the tool, and emailing it
to EPA. The burden per respondent for ENERGY STAR Exchange Services is
estimated to be 20 hours for the host to set up its account and
automated process, 2 hours to collect building data and set up each
customer, and 15 minutes per month to submit customer information to
EPA and retrieve/relay scores to customers. The burden for entering
information into the ENERGY STAR Energy Performance Indicator (EPI) is
estimated to range from 10 to 15 minutes per plant. This includes time
for reading the EPI's instructions and entering data in order to
generate a score. Finally, the burden per respondent for applying to
EPA for recognition is estimated to vary depending on the type of
recognition. The burden per respondent is estimated to range from 15
minutes for preparing/submitting a plant's energy efficiency score to
EPA for recognition (e.g., for EPA permission to display a banner or
plant flag) to 26.5 hours for preparing/submitting an application to
EPA for an ENERGY STAR Award.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Organizations participating in
ENERGY STAR in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors.
    Approximate Number of Respondents: 6,000.
    Frequency of Response: One-time, on occasion, monthly, annually,
and/or periodically, depending on the type of respondent and
collection.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 54,500.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $5,436,710, including $3,574,491 in
labor costs and $1,862,219 in O&M costs. There are no capital/start-up
costs to respondents.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 28,843 hours in
the total estimated annual burden hours currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The majority of this decrease
occurred because EPA adjusted the number of respondents and the burden
for some activities based on improved and updated data and analysis.
The burden estimates in ICR 1772.04 reflect EPA's program experience
gained over the past three years. In addition, EPA modified some of its
information collections to address EPA and stakeholder needs.

    Dated: October 28, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-18497 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 55044]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21586]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-298, OMB Control No. 3235-0337]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ac2-2(17 CFR
240.17Ac2-2) and Form TA-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 require registered transfer agents to
file an annual report of their business activities with the Commission.
These reporting requirements are designed to ensure that all registered
transfer agents are providing the Commission with sufficient
information on an annual basis about the transfer agent community and
to permit the Commission to effectively monitor business activities of
transfer agents.
    The amount of time needed to comply with the requirements of Rule
17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 varies. Of the total 362 registered transfer
agents, approximately 9.2% (or 33 registrants) would be required to
complete only questions 1 through 3 and the signature section of Form
TA-2, which the Commission estimates would take each registrant
approximately 30 minutes, for a total burden of approximately 17 hours
(33 x .5 hours). Approximately 26.5% of registrants (or 96 registrants)
would be required to answer questions 1 through 5, question 11 and the
signature section, which the Commission estimates would take
approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes, for a total of approximately 144
hours (96 x 1.5 hours). Approximately 64.2% of the registrants (or 232
registrants) would be required to complete the entire Form TA-2, which
the Commission estimates would take approximately 6 hours, for a total
of approximately 1,392 hours (232 x 6 hours). The aggregate annual
burden on all 362 registered transfer agents is thus approximately
1,553 hours (17 hours + 144 hours + 1,392 hours) and the average annual
burden per transfer agent is approximately 4.29 hours (1,553 / 362).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 29, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21586 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


		Economic Impact Analysis for the Secondary Lead NESHAP
      This report is the economic impact analysis for the final Secondary Lead NESHAP, which will be signed as per a court-ordered schedule on December 16, 2011.   Implementation of the rule is required by 3 years after promulgation of the final rule.  The standard is the MACT floor of control for each source type controlled.  Details on the rule can be found in the preamble contained in the public docket for this rulemaking.
      The Secondary Lead Smelting source category is defined as any facility at which lead-bearing scrap materials (including, but not limited to lead acid batteries) are recycled by smelting into elemental lead or lead alloys. For more information on the source category definition, please refer to the preamble.  Secondary lead smelters can be found worldwide.  In fact, secondary lead now accounts for more than half of all lead produced around the world.  In the U.S., more than 80 percent of all lead comes from secondary production.  Fourteen smelters can be found in the U.S.  Production of secondary lead totaled 1.15 million tons in 2010, an amount equivalent to 82 percent of reported domestic lead consumption.  Nearly all of it was recovered from old (post-consumer) scrap.   In the U.S., a new secondary lead smelter being built by Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) will be completed in Florence, SC in 2012, and an existing EnviroFocus facility in Tampa, FL will expand by 400% in 2012.
      There are eight parent owner companies affected by the rule.  These companies are found in NAICS 331492  -  Secondary Lead Smelting.   Two of these firms, Gopher Resources, LLC, and Battery Recycling Company, are small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for this industry  -  750 employees or less for a parent owner in the secondary smelting and refining of nonferrous metal (except copper and aluminum) industry.  A separate memo provides the impacts of the rule on these small companies, and concludes that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) as a result of this rule.
      The total annualized costs (TAC) of the rule for each parent owner company, which includes the annualized control, monitoring and recordkeeping costs as taken from the cost and emission reductions memo prepared for US EPA, are in Table 1.  The nationwide total annualized costs of this rule are $13.2 million.  All costs are in 2009 dollars.

            Table 1.  TAC for Each Parent Owner
Parent Owner and Subsidiary
Total Annualized Costs per Parent Owner
Exide Technologies (owner of Exide Electronics)
 $4,920,000
Quexco (owner of Revere Smelting and Refining  -  RSR and Quemetco)
$150,000
The Renco Group (owner of Doe Run Resources)
$3,600,000
East Penn Manufacturing
$300,000
Sanders Lead
$2,490,000
Gopher Resources, LLC (owner of EnviroFocus)
$600,000
Battery Recycling Company
$700,000
Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI)
$420,000
Total:
$13,180,000

      This analysis identified the businesses that will be affected by this rule and provides an analysis at a screening level to assist in determining whether this rule is likely to impose a significant economic impact on affected businesses.  The analysis employed here is a "sales test" that computes the annualized compliance costs as a share of sales for each company. The annualized cost per sales for a company represents the maximum price increase in affected product needed for the company to completely recover the annualized costs imposed by the regulation.
      The "sales test" is the impact methodology EPA employs in economic impact analysis such as this one as opposed to a "profits test", in which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share of profits.  This is because revenues or sales data is commonly available data for entities normally impacted by EPA regulations and profits data normally made available is often not the true profits earned by firms due to accounting and tax considerations.  Firms and entities often have ways legally available in the tax code to minimize their reported profits; thus, using reported profits may lead to a less than accurate estimate of the economic impact of a regulation to an affected firm or entity and their consumers.   While screening level analyses are often employed to estimate impacts to small business or entities as part an analysis in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), a screening level analysis can also be employed in an economic impact analysis such as this one whose focus is on the regulated companies.
      Economic impact estimates are shown in Table 2 below.  The table lists the 8 ultimate parent companies impacted by the rule, the costs of the rule for each company basis, the annual revenues for these companies, and then the impact to the company on a cost to sales basis.  Revenues are for the ultimate parent owners, and are for 2009 to be consistent with the year for the cost estimates.  Applying such a calculation yields the following results as shown below:
Table 2:  Economic Impact Results by Parent Owner for the Secondary Lead NESHAP
Parent Owner and Subsidiary
Total Annualized Costs per Parent Owner
Total Revenues in 2009 per Parent Owner (billions US dollars)
Annualized Costs per Revenues for Each Parent Owner (in %)
Exide Technologies (owner of Exide Electronics)
 $4,920,000
$3.32[a]
                                                             0.152
Quexco (owner of Revere Smelting and Refining and Quemetco)
$150,000
$0.44[b]
                                                                          0.032
The Renco Group (owner of Doe Run Resources)
$3,600,000
$4.75[c]
                                                                          0.076
East Penn Manufacturing
$300,000
$1.1[d]
                                                                          0.027
Sanders Lead Company (part of Wiley Sanders Truck Lines and KW Plastics)
$2,490,000
$0.10[e]
                                                                           2.40
Gopher Resources, LLC
$600,000
N/A
                                                                      <1%[f]
Battery Recycling Company
$700,000
$0.03[g]
                                                                          2.33%
Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI)
$420,000
$28.50[h]
                                                                          0.015
[a] Exide Technologies annual revenue for 2009 is found in the Annual Report for 2009 at http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDFArchive/xide2009.pdf., p. 2.
[b]Quexco's revenue estimated for  2009 can be found at http://www.hoovers.com/company/Quexco_Incorporated/hkhyki-1.html.
[c]The Renco Group (Doe Run Resources)'s revenue estimated for  2009 can be found at http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/21/private-companies-10_Renco-Group_QQ4T.html.
[d]East Penn Manufacturing's revenue in 2009 can be found at http://www.indeed.com/cmp/East-Penn-Manufacturing.
[e] The Sanders's companies's revenue in 2009 is the sum of the revenues for Wiley Sanders Truck Lines, KW Plastics, and the Sanders Lead Company as taken from lower-bound estimates of revenues for each company found at  www.manta.com.
[f] Gopher Resources, LLC's revenue is such that the TAC of this proposed rule is less than 1% of its revenues in 2009.  See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. "Small Business Evaluation for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category" for more details.
[g] Revenue data for the Battery Recycling Company is found in the "Small Business Evaluation for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category".
[h] JCI's revenues in 2009 can be found at http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=JCI:US.

      On a firm by firm basis, the results show that two parent owners affected by this rule will experience an annualized compliance cost of more than 2 percent of its sales.  One of these companies is the Battery Recycling Company, located in Puerto Rico, and is a small business as mentioned earlier in the report. The other is the Sanders Lead Company of Troy, Alabama, a company that is part of a business that includes the Wiley Sanders Truck Lines and KW Plastics. The impact on the small business, while not trivial, does not qualify as a significant impact and thus does not change the conclusion of the Agency that there is no SISNOSE for this rule.   It should be noted that this company, and Johnson Controls, Inc.  were not included in the Agency's analysis for the proposed rule.
      It should also be noted that this analysis does not presume any incidence of the costs on the consumers of secondary lead and other products made by these companies.  Thus, no estimate of the impact of this rule on secondary lead consumers, for intermediate or end-use, is included in this report.  However, it should be noted that available estimates show that the price elasticity of demand for secondary lead is -1.0, and the price elasticity of supply for secondary lead is 0.6.  Based on this information, one can conclude that demand will respond 1:1 with a change in secondary lead price, and that supply is inelastic (i.e., will respond less than 1:1) with a change in secondary lead price.  Thus, the direct impact of this rule appears quite minor, and thus it is reasonable to infer that the impact on secondary lead consumers from this rule should also be minor.  The TAC is taken from the cost memorandum mentioned earlier that was prepared by U.S. EPA for the rule and in that memorandum can be found more information on the cost analysis.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57507-57509]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0818]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Columbia River, Sand Island, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
for navigable waters of the Columbia River within a 500-yard radius of
the small boat ``Nessy,'' while in the area of Sand Island, near
Chinook, WA, and all involved associated vessels in support of Double-
Crested Cormorant removal operations conducted by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services. This
proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in
the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia
River, or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0818 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Kenneth Lawrenson, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of Agriculture
Wildlife Services notified the Coast Guard that they intend to conduct
federally permitted removal operations of the Double-Crested Cormorant
starting September 21, 2016. This operation will involve the use of
firearms and live ammunition. The Captain of the Port Sector Columbia
River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
removal operations will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-
yard radius of the small boat ``Nessy,'' and all involved associated
support vessel(s). The safety zone is needed to protect personnel and
vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled
operations. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in
33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone regulation from
September 21, 2016, through October 21, 2016. The safety zone will
cover all navigable

waters of the Columbia River within 500 yards of the small boat
``Nessy,'' and all involved associated support vessels being used by
personnel during the removal operation, conducted in the area
encompassed by these points: 46[deg]15'45'' N., 123[deg]59'39'' W.;
46[deg]15'24'' N., 123[deg]59'42'' W.; 46[deg]13'32'' N.,
123[deg]57'18'' W.; 46[deg]15'9'' N., 123[deg]55'24'' W.; and
46[deg]15'54'' N., 123[deg]58'6'' W. The 500 yard radius area of the
safety zone is intended to protect persons and vessels from the
dangerous combined effects of live gunfire, unpredictable animal
behavior, and a highly dynamic marine environment characterized by
strong tides, river currents and wind. This safety zone would be
enforced only when the small boat ``Nessy,'' and all involved
associated support vessels, are conducting the removal operations. The
duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and
activists wanting to protest the event in these navigable waters while
the removal operations are being conducted. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.
    We learned of the need for the safety zone regulation we are
proposing on August 11 2016. We have provided an 18-day comment period
for this proposed rule. If after considering comments we decide to
issue a temporary final rule, we would need to make that rule effective
less than 30 days after publication and would state our good cause for
doing so under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the Columbia River in the area
encompassing these points: 46[deg]15'45'' N., 123[deg]59'39'' W.;
46[deg]15'24'' N., 123[deg]59'42'' W.; 46[deg]13'32'' N.,
123[deg]57'18'' W.; 46[deg]15'9'' N., 123[deg]55'24'' W.; and
46[deg]15'54'' N., 123[deg]58'6'' W. Moreover, the Coast Guard would
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 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. This proposed rule

involves a safety zone lasting four weeks, for three days a week, that
will prohibit entry within 500 yards of the small boat ``Nessy'' and
all involved associated support vessels, while in the area encompassing
these points: 46[deg]15'45'' N., 123[deg]59'39'' W.; 46[deg]15'24'' N.,
123[deg]59'42'' W.; 46[deg]13'32'' N., 123[deg]57'18'' W.;
46[deg]15'9'' N., 123[deg]55'24'' W.; and 46[deg]15'54'' N.,
123[deg]58'6'' W., while personnel are conducting the removal
operations of the Double-Crested Cormorant. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion
Determination are 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.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0818 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0818  Safety Zone; Columbia River.

    (a) Location. The safety zone covered by this rule will cover all
navigable waters of the Columbia River within 500 yards of the small
boat ``Nessy,'' and all involved associated support vessels, while in
the area encompassing these points: 46[deg]15'45'' N., 123[deg]59'39''
W.; 46[deg]15'24'' N., 123[deg]59'42'' W.; 46[deg]13'32'' N.,
123[deg]57'18'' W.; 46[deg]15'9'' N., 123[deg]55'24'' W.; and
46[deg]15'54'' N., 123[deg]58'6'' W.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
subpart C of this part, no person may enter or remain in the safety
zone created in this section or bring, cause to be brought, or allow to
remain in the safety zone created in this section any vehicle, vessel,
or object unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative.
    (c) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer may enforce the rules in this section. In the navigable waters
of the United States to which this section applies, when immediate
action is required and representatives of the Coast Guard are not
present or are not present in sufficient force to provide effective
enforcement of this section, any Federal Law Enforcement Officer or
Oregon Law Enforcement Officer or Washington Law Enforcement Officer
may enforce the rules contained in this section pursuant to 46 U.S.C.
70118. In addition, the Captain of the Port may be assisted by members
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of Agriculture
Wildlife Services onboard the small boat ``Nessy,'' and other federal,
state, or local agencies in enforcing this section.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section is effective from September
21, 2016, through October 21, 2016. It will be enforced when the small
boat ``Nessy,'' and all involved associated support vessels, are
conducting the removal operations of the Double-Crested Cormorant. The
small boat ``Nessy'' is described as a 20-foot black and gray aluminum
work skiff with an overhead light arch. The Coast Guard will inform
mariners of any change to this period of enforcement via Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: August 17, 2016.
W. R. Timmons,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2016-20132 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P