[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57126-57130]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25945]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0013; FRL 9971-28-Region 2]

Approval and Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State
of New York; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
source-specific revision to the New York state implementation plan
(SIP) that establishes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
emission limits for the Danskammer Generating Station (``Danskammer'')
Unit 4, owned and operated by Danskammer Energy LLC. The SIP revision
establishes BART emission limits for sulfur dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen, and particulate matter that are identical to the emission
limits established by the EPA's federal implementation plan (FIP) for
Danskammer Unit 4, which was published on August 28, 2012. The EPA
finds that the SIP revision fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air
Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule for BART at Danskammer Unit 4. In
conjunction with this approval, we are withdrawing those portions of
the FIP that address BART for Danskammer Unit 4.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0013. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Linky, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007-1866 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA taking today?
II. What significant comments were received in response to the EPA's
proposed action?
III. What are the EPA's conclusions?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA taking today?

    The EPA is approving a source-specific SIP revision for Danskammer
Unit 4 (the ``Danskammer SIP Revision'') that was submitted by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on August
10, 2015, and supplemented on August 5, 2016. Specifically, the EPA is
approving BART emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2),
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM) for
Danskammer Unit 4 that are equivalent to the emission limits
established by the EPA's FIP that was promulgated on August 28, 2012
(77 FR 51915, 51917).
    In its submittal, NYSDEC included the following BART emission
limits for Danskammer Unit 4: 0.12 pounds of NOX per million
British thermal units (lb NOX/MMBtu) calculated on a 24-hour
average during the ozone season and on a rolling 30-day average during
the rest of the year; 0.09 lb SO2/MMBtu calculated on a 24-
hour average; and 0.06 lb PM/MMBtu calculated on a 1-hour average.
NYSDEC also included a condition that restricts Danskammer Unit 4 to
combusting only natural gas. As a result of the EPA's approval, the EPA
is withdrawing those portions of the FIP that address BART for
Danskammer Unit 4. The reader is referred to EPA's Proposed Rule, 82 FR
21749 (May 10, 2017), for a detailed discussion of this SIP revision.

II. What significant comments were received in response to the EPA's
proposed action?

    EarthJustice (EJ) submitted the following comments on behalf of the
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and Sierra Club.
    Comment 1: EJ supports the inclusion in the New York SIP of limits
that restrict combustion at Danskammer Unit 4 to natural gas. EJ agrees
with the EPA's conclusion that such a restriction will have the effect
of reducing visibility-impairing emissions compared to the prior Title
V permit and the EPA FIP that allowed combustion of coal, oil, or
natural gas in Unit 4. According to the 2012 BART determination study
for Danskammer Unit 4 that formed the basis for NYSDEC's and the EPA's
BART determinations, 100% firing of natural gas is associated with the
highest percent reduction of SO2 of the controls examined at
the time, and the third highest percent reduction of NOX.
Elimination of coal combustion is consistent with BART and will
certainly provide visibility benefits at Class I areas.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges EJ's support of the natural gas
requirement in the Danskammer SIP Revision.
    Comment 2: The 2012 BART determination for Danskammer Unit 4 formed
the basis for NYSDEC's and EPA's prior BART determinations. Since the
unit had already been converted to co-fire or exclusively fire natural
gas in 1987, the determination included the option of 100% firing of
natural gas as a feasible BART technology. Thus, the

use of natural gas is not fuel switching for this unit. The prior BART
analysis lists an achievable emission rate of 0.08 lbs/MMBtu for
NOX, and a control efficiency of 99.95% under the 100%
natural gas combustion scenario. Since natural gas combustion
technology is already installed and operating, the cost of the
technology to achieve these emission levels is $0.
    Response: The commenter's intended point is that because
restricting Danskammer Unit 4 to combusting natural gas is not a form
of fuel switching, the state must adopt BART emission limits that
reflect the low emission rates associated with natural gas combustion.
The EPA disagrees that restricting Danskammer Unit 4 to combusting
natural gas is not a form of fuel switching. The Danskammer Unit 4
boiler was designed to combust coal, fuel oil, and natural gas, and
until recent years, coal was the unit's primary fuel source. By
prohibiting Danskammer Unit 4 from combusting coal or fuel oil going
forward, the Danskammer SIP Revision effects a fuel switch from multi-
fuel capability to the exclusive use of natural gas. In the BART
Guidelines, the EPA stated that ``it is not our intent to direct States
to switch fuel forms, e.g., from coal to gas.'' 70 FR 39104, 39164
(July 6, 2005). As such, NYSDEC's decision to require fuel switching at
Danskammer Unit 4 as a condition in its SIP revision was entirely
discretionary. The EPA acknowledges that, by combusting only natural
gas, Danskammer Unit 4 can achieve the lower emission limits cited by
the commenter without additional cost, but the EPA cannot disapprove
the SIP for not including lower limits when the BART Guidelines do not
require states to consider fuel switching as a BART option in the first
instance. See 70 FR at 39164.
    Comment 3: As noted by the EPA, the emission limits for
SO2 and NOX adopted by NYSDEC for Danskammer Unit
4 are identical to those contained in EPA's 2012 FIP. However, the
rulemaking record for the 2012 FIP clearly demonstrates that these
emission limits were designed for a plant that maintained the option to
use coal as a fuel. The EPA's Regional Haze Rule requires that the
``determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system
of continuous emission control technology available and associated
emission reductions achievable.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). According
to the EPA's own BART Guidelines, ``[t]o complete the BART process, you
must establish enforceable emission limits that reflect the BART
requirements.'' 70 FR 39172. The coal-based emission limits in the
EPA's current proposal no longer reflect BART, as the plant is now
restricted to burning natural gas. Thus they are not emission
reductions ``associated'' with natural gas combustion under the BART
Guidelines. The EPA must instead establish lower limits under BART
reflecting the natural gas-only fuel restriction it proposes to
incorporate into the SIP.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that the natural gas requirement in the
Danskammer SIP Revision is BART. As explained in the response to
comment 2, the BART Guidelines do not require states to consider fuel
switching as a BART control option. In its 2012 SIP submittal, NYSDEC
included at its discretion a potential control option of 100%
combustion of natural gas for Danskammer Unit 4 before rejecting it in
favor of other control options. In the Danskammer SIP Revision,
however, NYSDEC did not indicate that it was now determining 100%
natural gas combustion to be BART. Rather, NYSDEC adopted the BART
emission limits that the EPA established in its 2012 FIP, which were
based on flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) for SO2, various
options for reducing NOX, and Unit 4's existing
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for PM. The EPA included a detailed
technical justification for its BART determinations in the record for
that rulemaking, see 77 FR 24793, 24812-15 (April 25, 2012) (proposal);
77 FR 51918-23 (final), and the commenter has not made any effort to
rebut that analysis with new information. Nothing in the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Regional Haze Rule, or the BART Guidelines requires the EPA
to disapprove the Danskammer SIP Revision and establish lower emission
limits reflecting 100% combustion of natural gas simply because NYSDEC
included that condition in addition to its BART emission limits in its
SIP revision. In any event, the EPA notes that requiring the lower
emission limits favored by the commenter would not achieve an
environmental benefit because the natural gas requirement in the
Danskammer SIP Revision already has the practical effect of reducing
Danskammer Unit 4's emissions to levels that are consistent with those
lower emission limits.
    Comment 4: The EPA claims in its proposal that NYSDEC's proposal is
sufficient because it is ``more stringent than the EPA's FIP.'' 82 FR
21750. However, the BART determination cannot simply be more stringent
than the EPA's FIP; it must stand alone as a BART determination, which
includes requiring an emission limit consistent with the ``best system
of continuous emission control technology available,'' in this case, at
a minimum, the exclusive use of natural gas. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). In the original BART determination, as the EPA
noted in its 2012 proposal, ``[a]lthough gas co-firing (and 100% gas
firing) appears to be feasible and cost effective, it was ruled out as
a control option due to high price volatility of natural gas and
potential reliability concerns on the state's electric system.'' 77 FR
24812. These concerns are no longer valid, if indeed they were in the
first place. Thus, based on the original BART determination for the
unit, limits associated with the 100% firing of natural gas should be
those originally associated with that control, i.e., no higher than
0.08 lbs/MMBtu for NOX and 99.95 percent SO2
control efficiency consistent with the unit's existing limits. The
existing NOX limit is on a 24-hour average during the ozone
season and a 30-day average during the remainder of the year. This is
unjustified and inappropriate for a visibility-specific limit given
100% gas firing and higher impacts from nitrates during the wintertime.
Also, the exclusive use of natural gas would reduce PM emissions as
well, and so a PM emission limit should be set that reflects 100%
natural gas firing, rather than the proposed limit of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu on
a 1-hour basis, which was determined based on tests performed when
burning coal.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment for the same reasons
described in the EPA's previous responses. The EPA acknowledges that
the Agency stated at proposal that the Danskammer SIP revision was
approvable ``because it is more stringent than the EPA's FIP.'' 82 FR
21750. More accurately, the SIP revision is approvable because it meets
minimum CAA requirements by adopting the emission limits in the EPA's
FIP, and then goes beyond those minimum CAA requirements by including
the ``more stringent'' natural gas requirement. See CAA section 116
(``[N]othing in [the CAA] shall preclude or deny the right of any State
. . . to adopt or enforce . . . any requirement respecting control or
abatement of air pollution . . . .'').
    Comment 5: As noted, NYSDEC has claimed to submit these changes for
Danskammer Unit 4 as an ``updated'' BART determination. The EPA has
proposed to approve it as such, simultaneously withdrawing the BART
determination in its FIP. However, NYSDEC has not submitted a BART
determination, only changes to Unit 4's Title V permit. Neither the
state nor the EPA has offered an actual BART

determination, which must include consideration of: The costs of
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the
remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). In this case, any
updated BART determination should also include consideration of
controls that can be used in addition to 100% firing of natural gas.
Because the proposed rulemaking does not include a BART determination,
the EPA cannot use it as a replacement for its challenged FIP. To fix
this critical shortcoming, the EPA has several options. First, the EPA
could include a BART determination with the final rule based on the
information submitted with the 2012 New York haze SIP, setting limits
based on 100% natural gas combustion and any further controls that it
determines to be BART. Second, NYSDEC could immediately supplement its
2012 haze plan as to Danskammer Unit 4, and include a BART
determination, again based on the prior BART analysis for 100% natural
gas combustion and any additional BART controls. If NYSDEC pursues the
second option and it cannot be achieved in a timely manner, EPA must
issue a limited approval of the Title V permit restriction as to
natural gas combustion and maintain the current FIP, disapproving the
current submission as to any purported BART determination and requiring
NYSDEC to formally resubmit an actual BART determination that includes
at least 100% natural gas combustion at Unit 4.
    Response: In the 2012 FIP, the EPA ``encourage[d] New York at any
time to submit a SIP revision to incorporate provisions that match the
terms of our FIP, or relevant portion thereof,'' explaining that if we
approved the SIP revision, it would replace the FIP provisions. 77 FR
51917. NYSDEC responded by submitting the Danskammer SIP Revision,
which incorporated provisions that match the terms of our FIP, as well
as an additional requirement restricting Danskammer Unit 4 to
combusting natural gas. Because NYSDEC was not required to update its
BART determinations beyond incorporating the BART emission limits from
the 2012 FIP, the EPA has no basis to disapprove the SIP revision and
supplant it with another FIP.
    Comment 6: The CAA requires that Danskammer procure, install, and
operate BART as expeditiously as practicable. ``As expeditiously as
practicable'' is defined as five years after the date of approval of a
plan revision or promulgation of a FIP. The FIP here was promulgated on
August 28, 2012. Therefore, the EPA must act promptly to respond to the
issues identified in this letter and determine BART for gas-only
combustion to enable Danskammer to meet this deadline.
    Response: The 2012 FIP required Danskammer Unit 4 to comply with
the BART emission limits by July 1, 2014. As a result of damage to the
facility sustained during flooding in 2012, Danskammer Unit 4 was non-
operational until the fall of 2014, when it began operating as a
natural gas peaking unit. Danskammer Unit 4 has been complying with the
BART emission limits in the FIP since it restarted in 2014. The
Danskammer SIP Revision adopts the FIP's BART emission limits, and they
will become federally enforceable on the effective date of this final
action. Therefore, NYSDEC has satisfied CAA section 169A(g)(4)'s
requirement that BART must be installed as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than five years after the date of
approval of a plan revision (i.e., the Danskammer SIP Revision).

III. What are the EPA's conclusions?

    The EPA has evaluated the Danskammer SIP Revision and is
determining that it meets the requirements of the CAA and the Regional
Haze Rule. Therefore, the EPA is approving the BART emission limits and
related administrative requirements (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements) for Danskammer Unit 4, which are identical
to those contained in the EPA's 2012 FIP: 0.12 lb NOX/MMBtu,
calculated on a 24-hour average during the ozone season and on a
rolling 30-day average during the rest of the year; 0.09 lb
SO2/MMBtu, calculated on a 24-hour average; and 0.06 lb PM/
MMBtu, calculated on a 1-hour average. NYSDEC also included in its SIP
revision a condition that restricts Danskammer Unit 4 to combusting
only natural gas, which the EPA is approving into the SIP.
Consequently, the EPA is withdrawing those portions of the 2012 FIP
that address BART for Danskammer Unit 4.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of a
single-source SIP revision, dated August 10, 2015, and supplemented on
August 5, 2016, from NYSDEC for Danskammer Unit 4 (Facility DEC ID
3334600011), including Title V permit conditions (permit ID 3-3346-
00011/00017) with Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission
limits for NOX, SO2, and PM. NYSDEC renewed
Danskammer's Title V permit on February 24, 2015. The summary of
emission limits and other enforceable requirements for this SIP
revision are included in section I of this rulemaking. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 2 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these
materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have
been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by the Director of the Federal Register in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because it will result in the approval of a SIP submitted
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for
Danskammer Generation Station Unit No. 4. Approval of SIPs falls within
a category of Actions that is exempted from review by OMB. It was
therefore not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action falls within the category of Actions that OMB has
exempted from review. This action specifically is an Approval of a
State Implementation Plan (SIP).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\2\ Because this
final rule has identical recordkeeping and reporting requirements to
the EPA's 2012 FIP, the PRA does not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small
entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of this
rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Because this final
rule has identical BART emission limits and related administrative
requirements (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements) to the EPA's 2012 FIP, this final rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This final rule is
also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or
safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately
affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As
explained previously, this action provides identical BART emission
limits and related administrative requirements (i.e., monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements) to the EPA's 2012 FIP.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

M. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 2, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: November 20, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart HH--New York

0
2. Section 52.1670(d) is amended by adding an entry entitled
``Danskammer Energy LLC, Danskammer Generating Station'' to the end of
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                EPA-Approved New York Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State       EPA approval
          Name of source              Identifier No.    effective date       date               Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Danskammer Energy LLC, Danskammer  NYSDEC Facility No.         2/25/15         11/4/17  Best Available Retrofit
 Generating Station.<PHONE_NUMBER>1.                                         Technology (BART)
                                                                                emission limits for
                                                                                NOX, SO2, and PM
                                                                                pursuant to 6 NYCRR
                                                                                part 249 for Unit 4 and
                                                                                the requirement to
                                                                                combust only natural
                                                                                gas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.1686 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
0
b. Amending paragraph (c)(1) table by removing the entry ``Danskammer
Generating Station--Dynergy.''
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  52.1686   Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following electric generating units (EGUs) in the State of New
York: Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2;
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-25945 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35573-35575]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15996]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81206; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use on Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.

July 25, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 12, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \3\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to modify the tier-
based incremental credits for Members that are Lead Market Makers
(``LMMs'') for their orders that provide displayed liquidity in the
securities described under footnote 14.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the Exchange's fee schedule available at https://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 17, 2014, the Exchange filed a proposal to adopt rules to
create an LMM Program (the ``Program'') on an immediately effective
basis.\5\ The Program is designed to strengthen market quality for
Exchange-listed Exchange Traded Products (``ETPs'') \6\ by offering
enhanced pricing to Market Makers \7\ registered with the Exchange \8\
that are also registered as an LMM in an LMM Security \9\ and meet
certain minimum quoting standards (``Minimum Performance
Standards'').\10\ In October 2015, the Exchange filed a proposed rule
change with the Commission to adopt LMM credit tiers under part (B) of
footnote 14 on an immediately effective basis.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72020 (April 25,
2014), 79 FR 24807 (May 1, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-015).
    \6\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.8(e)(1)(A), ETP means any
security listed pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11.
    \7\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(l), Market Maker means a
Member that acts as a Market Maker pursuant to Chapter XI.
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 11.5.
    \9\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.8(e)(1)(C), LMM Security
means an ETP that has an LMM.
    \10\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.8(e)(1)(D), Minimum
Performance Standards means a set of standards applicable to an LMM
that may be determined from time to time by the Exchange.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76147 (October 14,
2015), 80 FR 63621 (October 20, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange offers tier-based incremental
credits to Members that are LMMs for their orders that provide
displayed liquidity pursuant to part (B) of footnote 14 of the fee
schedule. Specifically, Members that are a Qualified LMM \12\ in at
least 25 LMM Securities receive an additional rebate per share (``LMM
Credit'') for orders that provide displayed liquidity in Tape B
securities traded on the Exchange, including non-Exchange-listed
securities, except that such LMM Credits are not applied to the rebates
provided to LMMs pursuant to part (A) of footnote 14 of the fee
schedule (the ``LMM Rebate''). Currently, the LMM Credits and volume
thresholds associated with Tape B securities are as follows: (i) An LMM
Credit of $0.0001 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least
25 ETPs; (ii) an LMM Credit of $0.0002 per share where an LMM is a
Qualified LMM in at least 50 ETPs; (iii) an LMM Credit of $0.0003 per
share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 75 ETPs; and (iv) an
LMM Credit of $0.0004 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at
least 125 ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ An LMM is a ``Qualified LMM'' in a security where it
provides pricing for orders that add displayed liquidity in an LMM
Security that meets the Minimum Performance Standards during the
applicable billing month. See Exchange Rule 11.8(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase these LMM Credits for Tape B
securities and to create new LMM Credits for Tape A and Tape C
securities. For Tape B securities, the Exchange is proposing to
increase the LMM Credits as follows: (i) From an LMM Credit of $0.0001
to $0.0002 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 25
ETPs; (ii) from an LMM Credit of $0.0002 to $0.0004 per share where an
LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 50 ETPs; (iii) from an LMM Credit of
$0.0003 to $0.0006 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at
least 75 ETPs; and (iv) from an LMM Credit of $0.0004 to $0.0008 per
share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 125 ETPs.
    For Tape A and Tape C securities, the Exchange is proposing to
create new LMM Credit Tiers such that a Member would receive: (i) An
LMM Credit of $0.0001 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at
least 25 ETPs; (ii) an LMM Credit of $0.0002 per share where an LMM is
a Qualified LMM in at least 50 ETPs; (iii) an LMM Credit of $0.0003 per
share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 75 ETPs; and (iv) an
LMM Credit of $0.0004 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at
least 125 ETPs.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to implement a cap of $100,000 per
Member on a monthly basis for additional rebates as part of the LMM
Credit Tiers under part B of footnote 14.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on September 1, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of

Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is designed to provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its Members and other persons using its facilities and it does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates
are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they would apply uniformly
to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are intended to encourage Members to promote
price discovery and market quality across all Exchange-listed
securities for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange
believes that increasing the LMM Credits for Tape B securities and
offering LMM Credits in Tape A and Tape C securities provides greater
incentives to Members to become LMMs in Exchange-listed ETPs, to
satisfy the Minimum Performance Standards in ETPs each month, and to
add liquidity in securities on the Exchange, and is therefore
reasonable because the Exchange believes doing so would encourage more
LMMs to register to quote and trade in as many Exchange-listed ETPs as
possible. While the Exchange already offers LMM Credits in Tape B
securities, increasing such rebates will further incentivize Members to
become LMMs in Exchange-listed ETPs and provide additional liquidity in
other ETPs generally. In particular, enhanced rebates based on the
number of securities for which a Member is registered as an LMM, would
provide an incentive for such Members not only to register as an LMM in
more liquid securities, but also to register to quote in lower volume
ETPs, which are traditionally less profitable for Market Makers than
more liquid ETPs. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change will incentivize LMMs to register as an LMM in more ETPs,
including less liquid ETPs and, thus, add more liquidity in securities
to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they remain consistent with the market quality and
competitiveness benefits associated with the fee program and because
the magnitude of the additional rebate is not unreasonably high in
comparison to the requirements associated with receiving such LMM
Credit and the rebate paid with respect to other displayed liquidity-
providing orders.
    The Exchange further believes that it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees to offer different LMM Credit rebates between Tape B
securities as compared to Tape A and Tape C securities. As described
above, LMM Credits are designed to incentivize increased participation
in the Exchange's LMM Program, but the Exchange believes that they will
also simultaneously incentivize higher trading volumes and enhanced
market quality by LMMs in all securities for which the LMM Credits
apply. While the Exchange believes that offering LMM Credits on each of
Tape A, Tape B, and Tape C securities will enhance market quality on
all securities traded on the Exchange, by offering higher LMM Credits
for Tape B securities, the Exchange will further incentivize increased
liquidity provision in Exchange-listed securities and for ETPs
generally, which further supports the purpose of the LMM Credits.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is an equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and is not
unfairly discriminatory to implement a monthly cap of $100,000 per
Member for additional rebates as part of the LMM Credit Tiers under
part B of footnote 14. Such a cap will help ensure that it will remain
financially viable for the Exchange to continue to offer the LMM Credit
Tiers. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed cap is high
enough as to not meaningfully reduce the incentives for Members to
become an LMM in Bats-listed securities or significantly mitigate any
of the market quality benefits to Bats-listed securities or other
securities traded on the Exchange that were described above.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Similarly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed change to the Exchange's pricing
structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance
competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of the
Exchange by modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow
and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed increase in rebates
will burden competition, but instead, enhances competition, as these
changes are intended to increase LMM participation in securities, to
incentivize Members to register as LMMs in Exchange-listed ETPs, and to
encourage Members to meet the Minimum Performance Standards in such
ETPs. As such, the proposal is a competitive proposal that is intended
to add additional liquidity to the Exchange, which will, in turn,
benefit the Exchange and all Exchange participants. Moreover, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments would burden
intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members
uniformly.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\15\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\16\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-44. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-44 and should be
submitted on or before August 21, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15996 Filed 7-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29492]
[DOCID:fr29my07-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-545-001]

Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 4, 2007, Commonwealth Edison Company
(ComEd) tendered for filing additional information to a Construction
Agreement between ComEd and High Trail Wind Farm, LLC, as requested by
FERC staff on April 4, 2007.
    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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 25, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10191 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19182]
[DOCID:fr13ap06-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-81-024]

Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of
Negotiated Rate

April 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 31, 2006, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission LLC (KMIGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, to
be effective April 1, 2006:

Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 4G
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 4G.01
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 4H
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 4I

    KMIGT states that a copy of this filing has been served upon all
parties to this proceeding, KMIGT's customers and affected state
commissions.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5459 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65149-65150]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0097]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by
Mr. Eddie L. Fray on behalf of the Parent Advocacy Group on November
27, 2015. The petitioner requested that the Secretary of Transportation
mandate installation of specific products and systems as well other
complementary safety features intended to prevent pediatric heatstroke
in vehicles. NHTSA is denying the petition because the Agency does not
initiate rulemaking to require installation of specific products.

DATES: September 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Riddoch, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-
2367, or Mr. Eli Wachtel, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Chief
Counsel. Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

I. Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Safety Act'')
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards
for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) must be practicable, meet
the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.
NHTSA does not endorse any vehicles or items of equipment. Further,
NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or equipment. Instead, the
Safety Act establishes a ``self-certification'' framework under which
each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet
all applicable safety standards.
    Petitions for rulemaking are governed by 49 CFR 552. Pursuant to
Part 552, the agency conducts a technical review of the petition, which
may consist of an analysis of the material submitted, together with
information already in possession of the agency. In deciding whether to
grant or deny a petition, the agency considers this technical review as
well as appropriate factors, which include, among others, allocation of
agency resources and agency priorities.

II. Petition

    On November 27, 2015, Mr. Fray submitted a petition on behalf of
the Parent Advocacy Group \1\ asking that the Secretary of
Transportation mandate lifesaving features and systems intended to
reduce heatstroke deaths of children in vehicles.\2\ The petitioner
states that the mandate is necessary to save lives and requests that
the Secretary issue the mandate within 30 days.\3\ A copy of the
petition is available in the docket identified at the beginning of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petition states that the Parent Advocacy Group is a
group of members dedicated to ending heatstroke deaths of children
in vehicles.
    \2\ Fray, Eddie L., Petition to the Secretary of Transportation
to Mandate a Number of Higher Safety Standards to the Automobile
Industry (``Fray Petition''), November 27, 2015, page 1.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of his request, the petitioner cites heatstroke death
statistics dating back to 1998 as well as information about specific
heatstroke deaths of children in vehicles. The petitioner also includes
information about actions NHTSA has taken regarding child heatstroke
deaths in vehicles and why he believes those actions fall short of what
is needed.\4\ The petition then describes a product called ``the
Guardian Cam,'' a heatstroke prevention alarm system called
``Accessory,'' and a seat belt and pressure sensing alert system called
``seat to seat.'' \5\ In addition to descriptions of the concepts, the
petitioner included exemplar sketches of what the concepts would look
like when installed in a vehicle. The petitioner also outlined how the
concepts are designed to work in various scenarios to prevent child
heatstroke in vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fray Petition at page 9.
    \5\ Fray Petition, pages 9-12. The petitioner has filed
copyrights for some of these concepts with the U.S. Copyright Office
in 2014 and 2015. (Guardian Car Cam: TXu001931485; Accessory:
TXu001999496; S2S Hot Car System: TXu001982523).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is our understanding that the petitioner is requesting that the
Secretary of Transportation mandate the installation of Guardian Cam
and other complementary systems and features on new motor vehicles. The
Secretary of Transportation has delegated responsibility for responding
to this petition to NHTSA.

III. NHTSA's Consideration of the Petition and Decision

    NHTSA has conducted an analysis of Mr. Fray's petition and, after
careful consideration, has decided to deny his petition and will not
initiate rulemaking proposing to require his concept countermeasures.
NHTSA is denying Mr. Fray's petition because it requests that NHTSA
mandate specific products and accompanying features. Under the Safety
Act, NHTSA is tasked with issuing motor vehicle safety standards that
set minimum standards for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
performance. In doing so, NHTSA aims to establish standards that are
performance-based and technology neutral. Additionally, as stated
above, NHTSA does not endorse individual products. Accordingly, NHTSA
finds that it would be inappropriate to grant a petition to initiate
rulemaking to require specific products. Mr. Fray also asks the
Secretary of Transportation to ``develop, demonstrate, and evaluate''
his proposed countermeasures. This request, however, does not fall
within the scope of a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR part 552.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Mr. Fray's petition did not request that NHTSA initiate
rulemaking to require vehicles to be able to detect and respond to
the presence of unattended children in seats, nor did it provide
supporting information demonstrating the practicability and safety
benefits of such a requirement. Such a request would have fallen
within the scope of a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR part 552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although NHTSA is denying the petition, the agency shares Mr.
Fray's concerns about the risk of pediatric heatstroke in vehicles and
is committed to taking appropriate steps to address this issue. To this
end, NHTSA continues to issue public messaging campaigns with numerous
safety partners and conduct research. Additionally, NHTSA has recently
initiated a rulemaking to establish new requirements to address
pediatric heatstroke in vehicles.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The RIN for this planned rulemaking is 2127-AM49. For more
information see https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202304&RIN=2127-AM49.

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

    Section 24222 of the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act
(commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL)
directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule requiring
that passenger motor vehicles be equipped with a system to alert the
operator to check rear-designated seating positions after the vehicle
engine or motor is deactivated by the operator that shall include a
distinct auditory and visual alert that may be combined with a haptic
alert.\8\ The BIL further directs the Agency to conduct studies on the
potential retrofitting of existing passenger motor vehicles with rear-
seat alert systems, as well as the potential benefits and economic
burdens associated with those technologies. These technologies are
intended to reduce the risk of children being left in rear-designated
seating positions when the vehicle motor is deactivated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58,
135 Stat. 429 Sec.  24222 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is also conducting research regarding the practicability of
issuing performance standards that would require detection of
unattended occupants in rear seats. Such requirements would provide
safety benefits beyond the mandated minimum.

IV. Conclusion

    NHTSA has reviewed the petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr.
Eddie L. Fray requesting that the Secretary of Transportation mandate
installation of specific products intended to prevent the pediatric
heatstroke in vehicles. NHTSA is denying the request because the agency
does not initiate rulemakings to mandate specific products.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30162 and 49 CFR part 552, the
petition for rulemaking from Mr. Eddie Fray is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Milton E. Cooper,
Director of Rulemaking Operations.
[FR Doc. 2023-20393 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


       EPA Presentation on Changes to UST Regulations at TRIBAL SUMMIT
                          TULSA, OK on March 29, 2012

EPA staff gave a short presentation on the proposed changes to the UST regulations and answered questions from the tribes.

Attendance
Heather Mann
US EPA Region 6
Roger Hancock
US EPA Region 6
Pinu'u Stout
ENIPC/OETA
Genevieve McGeisey
ENIPC/OETA
Mitchell Fipps
Citizen Potawatomi Nation
Dino Chavarria
Santa Clara Pueblo
Cheryl Stafford
Ottawa Tribe
Tabitha King
Ottawa Tribe
Robert Largent
ITEC
David Hayes
ITEC
Dwain Camp
Tonkawa Tribe of OK
Phillip Pennington
Chickasaw
Judy Ausmus
Muscogee (Creek) Nation
Jerry Kelley
Muscogee (Creek) Nation
Anthony Tiger
Cherokee Nation
Kasey Johnson
Cherokee Nation Entertainment
Dixie Shaw
Pawnee Nation
Brian Stillwell
Comanche Nation
Antonio Garza
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas
Chuck Tillman
Choctaw Nation


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19313-19315]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-90-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gulf Markets Expansion
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Gulf Markets Expansion Project
(Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Texas
Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Lavaca County, Texas; St.
Landry, Pointe Coupee, and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana; Scioto,
Ohio; Bath County, Kentucky; Giles County, Tennessee; and Monroe and
Franklin Counties, Mississippi. The Commission will use this EA in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on May 4, 2015.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What do
I Need to Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The purpose of the Project would be to provide 650,000 dekatherms
per day (Dth/d) of natural gas to the Gulf Coast region of Louisiana
and Texas from the natural gas basins in the Northeast and Texas. The
Project would consist of the following facility modifications:
     At the Wheelersburg Compressor Station in Scioto County,
Ohio to allow for bi-directional compression on six, existing 2,500
horsepower (HP) compressor units;
     at the Owingsville Compressor Station in Bath County,
Kentucky to allow for bi-directional compression;
     at the Mt. Pleasant Compressor Station in Giles County,
Tennessee to allow for support of bi-directional compression;
     at the Egypt Compressor Station in Monroe County,
Mississippi to allow for support of bi-directional compression;
     at the existing launchers and receivers at milepost (MP)
231.16, south of the Union Church Compressor Station in Franklin
County, Mississippi to allow for bi-directional in-line inspection;
     at the Gillis County Compressor Station in Beauregard
Parish, Louisiana to allow for bi-directional compression;
     at the existing Opelousas Compressor Station in Saint
Landry Parish, Louisiana, to allow for bi-directional compression, and
installation of an additional 12,500 HP electric-driven compressor
unit;
     at two existing metering and regulating (M&R) locations at
Lottie and New Roads Township in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana (M&R
71287 and M&R 71424) additions of gas chromatographs; and
     at the new Provident City Compressor Station in Lavaca
County, Texas, installation of a new 5,280 HP compressor unit.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.

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

Land Requirements for Construction

    The total land requirement for construction and operation of the
Project is about 50 acres, of which 21 acres would be permanently
affected by the facilities operation.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The NEPA also requires
us \2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed Project under these
general headings:
     geology and soils;
     land use;
     water bodies, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please
carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section
of this notice.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would
like to request cooperating agency status should follow the
instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Native American tribes, and the public on the Project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ We will define the Project-specific
Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the
Project develops. On natural gas projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this Project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
on consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your comments
so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before May 4,
2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the Project docket number (CP15-90-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an easy method
for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental groups and non-governmental organizations; interested
Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries
and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as
defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way
grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes,
or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities,
and anyone who submits comments on the Project. We will update the
environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we
send the information related to this environmental review to all
individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/
or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the compact
disc version or would like to remove your name from the mailing

list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the Docket Number field (i.e.,
CP15-90). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets.
    This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching
proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these
filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: April 2, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08230 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 3765]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

Electric System Planning Working Group

    January 26, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time.
    February 7, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time.
    February 24, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time.

Inter-Regional Planning Advisory Committee

    March 2012, 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Local Time (date to be
determined).
    The above-referenced meetings will be held at: NYISO's offices,
Rensselaer, NY.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.nyiso.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. RM10-23, Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by
Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities
Docket No. ER08-1281, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 18, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1468 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24869-24872]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0267]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone--Oil Exploration Staging Area in Goodhope Bay;
Kotzebue Sound, AK

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes temporary safety zones in the Port of
Goodhope Bay, Alaska, and adjacent U.S. territorial sea from 12:01 a.m.
local time on July 1, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. on October 15, 2015. The
temporary safety zones would encompass the navigable waters within a
25-yard radius of moored or anchored offshore exploration or support
vessels, and the navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of underway
offshore exploration or support vessels. The purpose of the safety
zones are to protect persons and vessels during an unusually high
volume of vessel traffic in the Port of Goodhope Bay, Alaska, and the
adjacent territorial sea due to additional vessel traffic associated
with exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas
during the summer of

2015. Lawful demonstrations are permitted outside of the temporary
safety zones so long as they do not endanger the safety of vessels
either moored or anchored within the port, transiting through the port,
or through the adjacent waters of the territorial sea.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0267 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility, Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Heikki Laukkanen, Sector Anchorage Prevention, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2015-0267), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2015-0267] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``submit a comment'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type''
drop down menu select ``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2015-0267''
in the ``Keyword'' box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon
shape in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type http://www.regulations.gov, click on the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box insert ``USCG-2015-0267'' and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking in the
``Actions'' column.
    You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140
on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not now plan to hold a public meeting; you may
submit a request for one using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold
one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    Similar safety zones were implemented in previous years when oil
exploration equipment was staged in other locations in Alaska, most
recently in 2012.

C. Basis and Purpose

    Based on information provided by private entities affiliated with
oil exploration activities, the Coast Guard anticipates approximately
eleven vessels associated with exploratory drilling operations will
call upon the Port of Goodhope Bay, Alaska, en route to proposed
drilling sites in the Chukchi and Beaufort. The addition of these
vessels in conjunction with the high volume of traffic operating within
the Port of Goodhope Bay creates a safety risk for all vessels
operating therein. Such risks include reduced ability to navigate
safely within the congested waterways of the port during the subject
time period.
    The vessels and equipment anticipated to be staged within these
areas, due to their size and technical complexity, pose a safety risk
to vessels that attempt to navigate too closely to them. Limited rescue
capabilities are available in the area. In evaluating whether a safety
zone would be appropriate, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety
factors and considered several criteria, including, but not limited to:
(1) The amount of commercial activity in and around the Port of
Goodhope Bay; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessels; (3)
sensitivity of the environment in the region and potential adverse
affects caused by a grounding, allision, or collision; (4) the types
and volume of vessels navigating in the

vicinity of the Port of Goodhope Bay; and (5) the need to allow for
lawful demonstrations without endangering the safe operations of
support vessels. Vessels transiting in the vicinity of the proposed
safety zones could consist of large commercial shipping vessels,
fishing vessels, tugs and tows, and recreational vessels. Any group or
individual intending to conduct lawful demonstrations in the vicinity
of offshore exploration support vessels must do so outside of the
temporary safety zones. Results from a thorough and comprehensive
examination of the five criteria identified above, in conjunction with
International Maritime Organization guidelines and existing
regulations, warrant establishment of safety zones to ensure safe and
efficient vessel transits within the Port of Goodhope Bay and the
adjacent territorial sea. These safety zones would facilitate safe
navigation and protect vessels from hazards caused by increased volume
of vessel traffic, including hazards that may be intentionally created,
in the Port of Goodhope Bay.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    For the reasons described above, the Coast Guard is proposing a
temporary safety zone due to safety concerns for personnel aboard the
support vessels, mariners operating other vessels in the vicinity of
Goodhope Bay, and to protect the environment. The proposed regulation
would significantly reduce the threat of collisions, allisions, or
other incidents which could endanger the safety of all vessels
operating on the navigable waters of the Port of Goodhope Bay and the
adjacent territorial sea. The Coast Guard proposes temporary safety
zones that will prohibit entry into the zones unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Western Alaska, or his
designated on-scene representative.
    The proposed temporary safety zones would encompass the waters
within 25 yards of the support vessel if the support vessel is moored
or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support vessel is in transit. They
would be in effect from July 1 through October 15, in order to
encompass the expected period of operations.

E. 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 or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The safety zone will
have negligible economic impact, as there will be ample room for
navigation around it.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the
minimal impact this will have on standard vessel operations within the
port of Goodhope Bay because of the limited area affected and the
limited duration of the rule. The proposed safety zones are also
designed to allow vessels transiting through the area to safely travel
around the proposed safety zones without incurring additional costs.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), (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 will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule could affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit through or anchor in within a portion of the Port
of Goodhope Bay or adjacent waters, from July 1, 2015 to October 15,
2015.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: These
safety zone restrictions are only effective from July 1, 2015 to
October 15, 2015, and are limited only to waters within 25 yards of the
support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100
yards if the support vessel is in transit.
    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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this 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, above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This 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.

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. 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 (NEPA) (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. Specifically, the proposed
rule involves establishing a safety zone, which is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
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.
0171.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T17-0267 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T17-0267  Safety Zone; Port of Goodhope Bay; Goodhope Bay,
Alaska.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: All navigable
waters within a 25-yard radius of a moored or anchored offshore
exploration or support vessel, or within a 100-yard radius of any
underway offshore exploration or support vessel, located within the
Port of Goodhope Bay, to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea.
    (b) Effective date. The temporary safety zones become effective at
12:01 a.m., July 1, 2015, and terminate on 11:59 p.m., October 15,
2015, unless sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port.
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in Sec.  165.23 apply to all vessels operating within the
area described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (1) If a non-exploration or support vessel is moored or anchored
and an offshore exploration or support vessel transits near them such
that it places the moored or anchored vessel within the 100-yard safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section, the moored or anchored
vessel must remain stationary until the offshore exploration or support
vessel maneuvers to a distance exceeding the 100-yard safety zone.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated on-scene representative,
consisting of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast
Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed
as directed by the COTP's designated on-scene representative.
    (3) Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the COTP or his designated on-scene representative. Any persons
desiring to enter the safety zone must contact the designated on-scene
representative on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and receive permission
prior to entering.
    (4) If permission is granted to transit within the safety zone, all
persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the designated
on-scene representative.
    (5) The COTP, Western Alaska, will notify the maritime and general
public by marine information broadcast during the period of time that
the safety zones are in force by providing notice in accordance with
Sec.  165.7.
    (d) Penalties. Persons and vessels violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33. U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: April 14, 2015.
Paul Mehler III,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Western Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2015-10234 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P