[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 65223]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27161]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9936-18--Region 6]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permits for Shell Chemical LP Deer Park Chemical Plant
and Shell Oil Company Deer Park Refinery in Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR
70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated September 24,
2015, granting in part and denying in part two petitions asking EPA to
object to operating permits issued by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality for Shell Chemical LP's Deer Park Chemical Plant
and Shell Oil Company's Deer Park Refinery (Title V operating permit
numbers O1668 and O1669). The EPA's September 24, 2015 Order responds
to the two petitions, dated May 19, 2014, submitted by the
Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Sierra Club, and Air Alliance
Houston. Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a
petitioner may ask for judicial review by the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit of those portions of the Order that
deny issues raised in the petition. Any petition for review shall be
filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the Federal
Register, pursuant to section 307(b) of the CAA.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and
other supporting information at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
    EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of
the final Order, petitions, and other supporting information. You may
view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these
documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the
visiting day. Additionally, the final September 24, 2015 Order is
available electronically at: http://www2.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/order-responding-2014-petition-requesting-administrator-object-deer-park.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee Wilson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 6 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review, and object, as appropriate, to a title V operating permit
proposed by a state permitting authority. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days
after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V
operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only
on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable
specificity during the public comment period provided by the state,
unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise
such objections during the comment period or unless the grounds for the
objection arose after this period.
    The Petitioners maintain that the Shell Deer Park title V operating
permits are inconsistent with the Act based on the following
contentions: (1) The proposed permits' incorporation by reference of
minor NSR authorizations fails to assure compliance; (2) The proposed
permits' incorporation by reference of permits by rule fails to assure
compliance; (3) The proposed permits fail to require monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting sufficient to assure compliance with
applicable requirements; (4) The proposed permit for the Deer Park
Refinery impermissibly uses the permit shield provisions; (5) The
proposed permits fail to require Shell to obtain SIP-approved
authorizations for qualified facilities changes; (6) The proposed
permit for the Chemical Plant fails to address Shell's non-compliance
with 30 Texas Administrative Code section 116.116(d), which requires
PBRs for previously permitted facilities to be incorporated into
existing permits on renewal or amendment; (7) The Executive Director's
revision to draft permits' special condition 28 in O1668 and special
condition 29 in O1669 are improper; and (8) The proposed permits must
clarify that credible evidence may be used by citizens to enforce the
terms and conditions of the permits. The claims are described in detail
in Section IV of the Order.
    Pursuant to sections 505(b) and 505(e) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7661d(b) and (e)) and 40 CFR 70.7(g) and 70.8(d), the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has 90 days from the receipt
of the Administrator's order to resolve the objections identified in
Claims 2., 3.B., 3.C., and 6. of the Order and submit a proposed
determination or termination, modification, or revocation and
reissuance of the Shell Deer Park title V permits in accordance with
EPA's objections. The Order issued on September 24, 2015 responds to
the Petitions and explains the basis for EPA's decisions.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-27161 Filed 10-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10765-10766]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-64]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0145; FRL-8534-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National-Scale Activity Survey (N-SAS); EPA ICR No.
2293.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request for a new Information Collection Request (ICR) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0145, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Air and Radiation Docket, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0145. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zachary Pekar, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C504-06,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 919-
541-0237; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0145, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/
DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested In?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0145.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
adults age 35

and older living in metropolitan areas that experience episodes of high
ozone pollution levels in the summer.
    Title: National-Scale Activity Survey (N-SAS).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2293.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW.
    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The EPA, along with State and regional air quality
regulators support the Air Quality Index (AQI), to notify the public of
health hazards associated with air pollution, primarily ozone and
particulate matter pollution (PM). EPA, and specifically the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, which manages the AQI program, is
interested in assessing the public's awareness, knowledge and both
stated and actual behavioral response to AQI warnings. To address this
need, OAQPS wishes to conduct the longitudinal National-Scale Activity
Surveys (N-SAS) to gather information on the public's perceptions,
awareness, attitudes, and stated and actual behaviors in response to
AQI warnings. The survey data will be used to evaluate whether the AQI
warnings effectively inform the public about health hazards associated
with high levels of ozone and to measure behavior change on high ozone
days. The information will also be used to help improve outreach
efforts to this population. The survey will be administered to a
susceptible subpopulation of concern, adults age 55 and older who
engage in some level of physical activity living in cities with ozone
pollution problems. The survey will also be administered to a similar
sample of adults age 35 and older for comparison purposes. The data
will be collected through a Web-based survey of members from Knowledge
Network's Web panel. Response to the survey is voluntary. The
respondents will be anonymous to EPA and contractor staff and Knowledge
Networks keeps identity of respondents confidential.
    The longitudinal N-SAS consists of a series of nine surveys. A
screening survey at the beginning and a debriefing survey at the end
will provide information on the respondents, their awareness and
knowledge of air pollution and the AQI, risk perceptions regarding
health effects, and reported behaviors on high ozone days. After the
screening survey, panelists will be administered a set of seven
activity diaries administered on both high and low ozone days to
collect information on actual behavior.
    In addition to assessing the effectiveness of AQI-based ozone
warnings, the data will also be used to supplement the limited data
available to develop exposure profiles for older Americans and to
identify behaviors that may affect exposure analysis, for example
identifying populations that report altering their behavior on high air
pollution days or reported behavior by individuals who live in a
particular area such as near major roadways. The responses will also
provide information for future studies of the economic benefits of air
quality improvements by identifying behavioral changes and other
potential costs associated with high levels of air pollution.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.24
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 800 complete all
surveys, 1,858 starting sample size.
    Frequency of response: On occasion, up to 9 surveys total.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 9.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 2.24 hours for each respondent
to complete all 9 surveys, for the original sample of 1,858 the average
burden across all respondents is 1.04 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $53,000. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $53,000 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    This is a new request.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: February 20, 2008.
Karen M. Martin,
Acting Director, Health and Environmental Impacts Division.
[FR Doc. E8-3787 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Page 1 of 8 DRAFT April 4, 2005 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING MAY 3 4, 2005 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2005 0060 TSCA INVENTORY NOMENCLATURE FOR ENZYMES AND PROTEINS TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2005 Holiday Inn   Rosslyn at Key Bridge 1900 North Fort Myer Drive Arlington, Virginia 22209 Telephone: ( 703) 807 2000

8: 30 AM Introduction and Identification of Panel Members   Steven Heeringa, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Session Chair)

8: 45 AM Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official   Paul Lewis, Ph. D.

8: 50 AM Welcome   Clifford Gabriel, Ph. D. ( Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA)

8: 55 AM Opening Remarks   Mr. Charles Auer ( Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA)

9: 00 AM Background on TSCA Inventory   Greg Fritz, Ph. D. ( Economics, Environment and Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA)

9: 30 AM Agency's Proposed Approach for Enzyme Identification on the TSCA Inventory  Mark Segal, Ph. D. ( Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA)

10: 15 AM BREAK

10: 30 AM Public Comments EPA is proposing the use of four data elements ( function, sequence, source, and processing) for comprehensively listing and distinguishing among enzymes on the TSCA Inventory. The following questions are intended to help the Agency make a final decision on how enzymes will be listed on the Inventory in the future. Page 2 of 8 Function The FUNCTION of an enzyme refers to its catalytic activity. Internationally accepted nomenclature conventions of the Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology ( NC IUBMB) describe and categorize enzymes based on their function. The NC IUBMB assigns enzymes an Enzyme Committee ( EC) code number based on the specific reaction( s) catalyzed by the enzyme, the nature of the bond involved, and the substrate acted upon. EPA intends to incorporate function into TSCA Inventory enzyme listings by using these EC codes and the systematic name for the specific catalytic activity. In the questions below, please identify the scientific merit for using function information to differentiate among enzymes and identify what level of detail regarding function would be scientifically appropriate for this purpose.

1. While the Agency recognizes the practical, historical advantages of using function to describe enzymes, in the context of the Agency's need for unique and unambiguous naming, what is the scientific rationale for identifying an enzyme based on the chemical reaction( s) it catalyzes?

2. How precise is the IUBMB EC categorizing system for describing enzyme function? For example, in addition to the EC function category to which an enzyme belongs, what additional information about enzyme structure and/ or chemical properties, if any, would be gained by a more detailed functional description that included a. enzyme reaction conditions ( e. g., pH range, reaction temperature range)?

b. non catalytic enzyme functions that are not represented by EC codes ( e. g., binding properties)?

c. other additional information about function that could be used to differentiate enzymes ( please specify what would be of value)?

3. The Agency is trying to gauge the probable comprehensiveness of enzyme catalytic function descriptions for subsequent enzyme reporting.

a. How common are multifunctional enzymes?

b. How frequently are new catalytic functions for existing enzymes discovered?

c. How good are existing models to assess the likelihood that an enzyme may have several catalytic functions?

d. What information is required to utilize such models?

12: 30 PM LUNCH

1: 30 PM Panel Discussion 4. What information about an enzyme could be gained by identifying it based on its amino acid sequence?

5. The Agency is trying to assess the expected amount of variation in an enzyme amino acid sequence due to various causes in spite of current quality control standards. Page 3 of 8 a. How much and what type of variation ( including substitutions, deletions, and additions) can be expected in the amino acid sequence of an enzyme produced in multiple batches that will arise due to unintended differences in production conditions? Estimate a percentage, number of residues, or other quantifiable measure of variation.

b. How much and what type of variation ( including substitutions, deletions, and additions) can be expected in the amino acid sequence of an enzyme within a given sample of a single production batch due to individual level variation in an enzymeproducing population? Estimate a percentage, number of residues, or other quantifiable measure of variation.

c. How much and what type of variation ( including substitutions, deletions, and additions) can be expected in the amino acid sequence of an enzyme across multiple samples collected over time ( e. g., in microbial cultures stored for extended periods) due to changes in an enzyme producing population? Estimate a percentage, number of residues, or other quantifiable measure of variation.

i.. Over what time scale will such variation arise? That is, is there a predictable relationship between the amount of variation and the length of time in culture?

ii. What kinds of changes might occur to an enzyme preparation if naturally occurring variants become the dominant component ( e. g., changes in rates of activity, reactions catalyzed, substrate range, response to environmental conditions)?

iii. Have any enzymes in commerce or research been known to change in amino acid sequence over time? Have any been known to remain unchanged in amino acid sequence for a year/ decade or longer?

6. EPA is trying to judge whether a scientifically appropriate level of maximum permissible overall amino acid sequence variation could be determined when identifying a specific enzyme.

a. What types of differences may exist among enzyme variants that differ by a single amino acid change? that differ in amino acid composition by 0.5%? 1%? 10%? etc.?

b. How much does the region of the enzyme in which the variation occurs matter? For example, how important are changes in the amino acid sequence of the active site versus the rest of the molecule? Are there other regions of the enzyme that are considered important, i. e., where sequence is generally conserved?

d. How important are deletions and/ or excisions in determining differences between enzymes?

e. How easy would it be for a typical enzyme manufacturer to determine the location of the active site or other specific regions mentioned in 6b?

3: 00 PM BREAK

3: 15 PM Panel Discussion ( continued)

7. EPA wants to assess the efficacy of existing sequencing technologies.

a. How accurate and reproducible are readily available amino acid sequencing techniques and instrumentation? Page 4 of 8 b. How accurate and reproducible are readily available nucleotide sequencing techniques and instrumentation?

c. Does the accuracy of the result depend on the choice of method?

d. How rapidly are sequencing techniques improving or new techniques being developed?

e. How reliably can one predict the amino acid sequence of the final gene product based on the nucleotide sequence?

8. What additional information would be gained, if any, by a more detailed structural description that included in addition to amino acid sequence:

a. glycosylation sites ( and the composition of these carbohydrate moieties),

b. coenzymes ( prosthetic groups),

c. cofactors, and/ or d. other post translational modifications to residues of the amino acid chain?

4: 30 PM ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 8 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING MAY 4, 2005 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2005 0060 TSCA INVENTORY NOMENCLATURE FOR ENZYMES AND PROTEINS WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2005 Holiday Inn   Rosslyn at Key Bridge 1900 North Fort Myer Drive Arlington, Virginia 22209 Telephone: ( 703) 807 2000

8: 30 AM Introduction and Identification of Panel Members   Steven Heeringa, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Session Chair)

8: 35 AM Administrative procedures by Designated Federal Official   Paul Lewis, PhD.

8: 40 AM Follow up from Previous Day's Discussion  Mark Segal, Ph. D. ( Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA)

9: 00 AM Panel Discussion ( continued)

Source The SOURCE of an enzyme refers to ( 1) the organism from which the gene encoding the enzyme was derived, i. e., the original source and ( 2) the organism or manufacturing platform ( e. g., tissue culture) in which the enzyme is produced, i. e., the production source. In the questions below, please consider what scientific support there is for using source information to differentiate among enzymes and what level of detail would be scientifically appropriate for this purpose.

9. What information about an enzyme's structure could be gained by knowing a. the original source of the enzyme?

b. the production source of the enzyme?

10. If original source information were used as an identification element to discriminate among enzymes, what level of taxonomic specificity ( e. g., family, genus, species, subspecies, population, biovar, culture line) would be most scientifically appropriate to use for each of the following categories? What if production source information were used? ( Note: EPA recognizes that taxonomic revisions may change the names of particular organisms and can utilize mechanisms for normalizing organism nomenclature, but that consideration does not need to be addressed by the panel.)

a. plants Page 6 of 8 b. animals c. fungi d. bacteria e. other micro organisms

10: 30 AM BREAK 11. How could source be described if taxonomic names were inappropriate because either the original or production source were artificial? Examples of such new technologies could include enzymes produced/ developed through gene splicing or ex vivo chemical synthesis.

12. What information about an enzyme's structure could be gained by additional details about source including:

a. the particular tissue or organ of a given source organism from which they were derived ( e. g., swine pancreatic tissue vs. swine salivary glands)?

b. the chemical, geographic, and/ or environmental conditions from which source organisms were isolated ( e. g., soil, water, feces, etc.)?

c. manipulations of the enzyme

s original source prior to gene transfer ( e. g., through rDNA technology, radiation treatment, altered rearing conditions, etc.)?

d. manipulations of an enzyme

s production source prior to and/ or following gene transfer?

e. other relevant aspects of source that are not mentioned ( please specify what would be of value).

12: 00 PM LUNCH

1: 00 PM Panel Discussion ( continued)

Processing The PROCESSING of an enzyme refers to procedures used to isolate the enzyme from the production organism or manufacturing platform, procedures used to purify the enzyme, and/ or any chemical reactions to which the enzyme is subjected to produce the final enzyme product. In the questions below, please consider what scientific support there is for using certain processing information to differentiate among enzymes and identify the level of detail that would be scientifically appropriate for this purpose. What information about an enzyme's structure could be gained by knowing which of certain processing techniques were used in its production?

13. What information about an enzyme's structure could be gained by knowing which of certain processing techniques were used in its production? Page 7 of 8 14. EPA anticipates that certain processing techniques may be so routine and/ or chemically inconsequential that their reporting would be unnecessary, while other processing techniques would have significant effects on the chemical structure and/ or properties of an enzyme. The Agency is trying to assess how practical it would be to create a list of processing techniques that need not be included as part of enzyme identity.

a. What processing techniques are used in the isolation and purification of enzymes?

b. Which processing techniques could change the chemical structure of the enzyme? Which could change chemical properties that would indicate an underlying structural change?

c. Describe the chemical or structural changes expected to occur from the use of the processing techniques identified in 14( b).

d. Which processing techniques would not be expected to cause any structural changes to the enzyme? Which would not be expected to cause any chemical property changes?

3: 00 AM BREAK

3: 15 PM Panel Discussion ( continued)

15. EPA is trying to anticipate whether inclusion of processing in enzyme identity will increase in importance as a result of future advances in enzyme production.

a. What new processing techniques are being developed?

b. How might these techniques change an enzyme's chemical structure or properties?

How frequently are new processing techniques for enzymes adopted?

Other/ General Questions:

16. Aside from function, sequence, source, and processing, are any other data elements crucial for enzyme identification?

17. Are there any special considerations that should be taken into account when identifying enzymes with multiple, non identical subunits? For example, a. when only one subunit is modified? b. when a modified enzyme is a component of an enzyme complex? c. when a multi functional, multi component enzyme performs a sequence of reactions? d. when an enzyme has another non catalytic function, e. g., a binding site? e. under any other circumstances?

18. Although EPA believes that all four identification elements are critical for enzyme identification for TSCA purposes, the Agency is trying to judge their relative importance. a. Do any data elements warrant greater emphasis than others because differences in those data element( s) reflect more significant differences in an enzyme's physical and/ or chemical properties than the others do?

b. If data for sequence, source, and processing were the same for two enzymes ( at the level of detail you have determined to be appropriate in the questions above), what Page 8 of 8 additional information about chemical structure and/ or properties would be provided by distinguishing the enzymes based on function?

c. If data for function, sequence, and processing were the same for two enzymes ( at the level of detail you have determined to be appropriate in the questions above), what additional information about chemical structure and/ or properties would be provided by distinguishing the enzymes based on original source? production source?

d. If data for function, sequence, and source were the same for two enzymes ( at the level of detail you have determined to be appropriate in the questions above), what additional information about chemical structure and/ or properties would be provided by distinguishing the enzymes based on processing?

5: 00 PM ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone: ( 202) 564 8450; fax: ( 202) 564 8382; or email: lewis. paul@ epa. gov


[Federal Register: September 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 54639-54640]
[DOCID:fr18se06-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-426-028]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Negotated Rate

September 11, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 1, 2006, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,
(Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 52, to become effective
September 1, 2006.
    Texas Gas states that the purpose of this filing is to submit to
the Commission a tariff sheet detailing a Negotiated Rate Agreement
between Texas Gas and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dated August 31,
2006, to be effective September 1, 2006, under a Short-Term Firm
Transportation (STF) service agreement. This negotiated rate agreement
is being submitted in compliance with ``Section 38. Negotiated Rates''
of the General Terms and Conditions of Texas Gas' tariff and the
Commission's modified policy on negotiated rates [104 FERC ] 61,134
(2003)].
    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
Section 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 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

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15392 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:	Schaffner, Karen S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:	Monday, June 08, 2009 2:23 PM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:	NOx Chapters:  Siemens TDL NH3 slip

Good Afternoon, Mr. Dean:  Thank you very much for the information on Siemens TDL ammonia
monitoring system you shared today.  I have included a summary of our discussion below and
hopefully I understood you clearly.  Please feel free to correct me or expand on.  Thank you,
Karen Schaffner

The Siemens TDL for ammonia monitoring is in place at approximately 90 to 100 full-scale coal-
fired units in the U.S.  Facilities measure NH3 slip concentration after the SCR (and SNCR) and
before the air heater.  Some facilities measure at up to 3 points in the duct between the SCR and
AH (for example, at 10 foot distances) to account for or eliminate any stratification.  The Siemens
TDL unit has a capital cost of approximately $40,000 for one point of measurement;
measurement at three points could be up to $70,000 for capital cost.

Karen Schaffner
Air Quality Engineering Group
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Rd (800 Park, C311)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28546-28547]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.

Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Docket No.                       File date                 Presenter or requestor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP17-495-000, CP17-494-000.............        6-4-2019  West Coast Contractors.
    2. P-14227-003............................        6-4-2019  William and Teryn Miller.
    3. P-14227-000............................        6-4-2019  Daniel R. Hume.
Exempt:
    P-14795-002...............................        6-4-2019  FERC Staff.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Telephone Memorandum conference call on June 4, 2019 with JT Steenkamp from Shell North America (US) L.P.
  (Shell).

    Dated: June 11, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12972 Filed 6-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 247)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68558-68564]
[DOCID:fr28de09-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0190]
RIN 2127-AK20

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and
Window Retention and Release

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes two housekeeping measures relating to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, ``Bus emergency
exits and window retention and release.'' First, in response to a
petition for rulemaking from the School Bus Manufacturers' Technical
Council, NHTSA proposes to amend the standard to specify that the
exterior release (the exterior handle) for school bus rear emergency
exit doors may be located opposite the door hinges. The standard
currently specifies that the exterior release for rear emergency exit
doors be located in the middle of the door. Second, this NPRM would
clarify FMVSS No. 217 as to the number of force applications that are
required to open a window or roof emergency exit. For exits with one
release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to
open. The standard currently specifies that the ``mechanism'' shall
require two force applications to open. For exits with two release
mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force applications to open
the exit: one force application shall be applied to each of the two
mechanisms to release the mechanism, and another force shall be applied
to open the exit.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: DOT Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to: http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. Charles
Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
(fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>), NVS-113. For legal issues, Ms. Dorothy Nakama,
Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (fax: 202-366-
3820), NCC-112. These officials can be reached at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Location of Exterior Release on Rear Emergency Exit Door
III. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    The purpose of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) is to minimize the
likelihood of occupants being thrown from the bus and to provide a
means of readily accessible emergency egress. FMVSS No. 217 applies to
buses (including school buses), except buses manufactured for the
purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint. FMVSS No. 217
establishes requirements for the retention of windows other than
windshields in buses, and establishes operating forces, opening
dimensions, and markings for bus emergency exits.

II. Location of Exterior Release on Rear Emergency Exit Door

    At S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), FMVSS No. 217 establishes provisions for the
location of the interior and exterior releases (handles) for side and
rear emergency door exits for school buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) (``large
school buses''). The standard currently specifies at S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and
Figure 3D of the standard, and has specified since 1973, that the
interior and exterior releases (handles) for rear emergency exit doors
be located in the center of the door. However, school bus manufacturers
have always understood the standard as requiring only the placement of
the interior release (handle) to be in the center of the door, and that
the exterior release (handle) may be near the edge of the door on the
side opposite the hinges. This is because the exterior handle so
located makes it easier for rescuers outside the school bus to open the
rear emergency exit door, using a pulling motion, rather than pulling
on an exterior handle located in the center of the door.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Locating the outside handle in the center region of the door
makes it harder for first responders to open the door from the
outside in the event of an emergency. This is because of the
mechanical advantage provided by the lever arm, e.g., the longer the
distance between the handle and the door hinges, the less force is
required to open the door. Thus, for optimum leverage, the handle
should be operated from the side of the door as far away as possible
from the door hinges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The School Bus Manufacturers' Technical Council (SBMTC) petitioned
the agency to amend FMVSS No. 217 to specify that the exterior release
(handle) for school bus rear emergency exit doors may be located near
the edge of the door on the side opposite the hinges. Specifically,
SBMTC petitioned to amend S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and one of the two drawings in
Figure 3D.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) specifies that the manual interior and outside releases
(handles) are located: ``Within the high force access region shown in
Figure 3A for a side emergency exit door, and in figure 3D for a rear
emergency exit door.'' Figure 3D consists of two drawings. The left-
side drawing shows the vertical dimensions of the high force access
region. As shown in the left-side drawing, the release (handle) may be
located at any point from the left side of the door to the right.
However, the right-side drawing, giving a different perspective of the
rear exit, shows that the high force access region is a narrow area in
the center of the door. Since S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) requires the interior and
exterior releases (handles) to be ``[w]ithin the high force access
region shown in * * * figure 3D for a rear emergency exit door,'' the
releases must be in that narrow area in the center of the door shown in
the right-side drawing of Figure 3D. As noted earlier, in actuality,
SBMTC stated that manufacturers are ``universally'' placing the
exterior releases on the side of the doors opposite the hinges.
    SBMTC suggests that we reconcile the language of the standard with
the practices of the industry and with what petitioner believes is best
for safety. The petitioner suggests that we make the right-side drawing
of Figure 3D apply only to the interior release (handle) and not to the
exterior release. With regard to applying the right-side drawing to the
interior release (handle), the petitioner believes there are reasons to
require the interior release to be in the center of the door: the
location ensures that the release is visible to bus occupants, and is
not obscured by seat backs if the door is wider than the bus's center
aisle. Further, we note that the exit would be opened by a pushing
rather than pulling

motion, so locating the handle in the center of the door does not
markedly increase the difficulty of opening the door. However, since
exterior releases (handles) are not obscured by seat backs, and since
it is more difficult to open an exit by a pulling motion when the
release (handle) is in the center of the door than when the handle is
on the edge opposite the hinges, SBMTC believes that specifying a
location in the center of the door serves no safety purpose for an
exterior release.
    NHTSA agrees. We propose amending the standard to specify that the
interior release (handle) for a rear emergency exit must be in the high
force access region shown in both drawings of current Figure 3D, and
that the exterior release for the exit must only be in the high force
access region shown in the left-side drawing of current Figure 3D.
Although no manufacturer currently places the exterior release in the
center of the door, we request comment on whether we should require the
exterior release to be no further than two inches away from the edge of
the door. (To clarify the standard, NHTSA proposes that instead of
having Figure 3D consist of two drawings, Figure 3D would be easier to
understand if the left-side drawing were renamed Figure 3D(1) and the
right-side drawing were renamed Figure 3D(2).) We tentatively agree
that the school bus manufacturers' current practice of placing the
exterior rear emergency exit door release (handle) near the edge of the
door on the side opposite the hinges better meets the need for safety
than placing the exterior release in the center of the door. Releases
(handles) placed opposite the hinges would require less force to pull
open the door for persons outside the school bus.
    We believe that this proposal is primarily a housekeeping measure
that involves no cost implications, since all manufacturers of large
school buses currently locate the exterior release (handle) on the edge
of the door opposite the hinges. Demands on agency rulemaking resources
have impeded the agency's progress in issuing this NPRM on this
housekeeping matter. This proposal would provide more flexibility in
locating the exterior release.
    Since all manufacturers currently meet the proposed changes
discussed above regarding placement of the exterior release (handle),
we propose making the amendments effective 60 days following
publication of a final rule.

III. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release

    At S<IP_ADDRESS>, FMVSS No. 217 specifies the type of and force
applications to open emergency window exits in all school buses, and at
S<IP_ADDRESS> does the same for school bus emergency roof exits. At S5.3.2,
the standard specifies the type of and force applications to open
emergency exits in buses other than school buses.
    These paragraphs of the standard specify, among other things: ``In
the case of [an exit] with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall
require two force applications to release the exit. In the case of [an
exit] with two release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one
[force] application to release the exit.'' The language first appeared
in a November 2, 1992, final rule (57 FR 49423).
    In a June 13, 1994 interpretation letter to Blue Bird Body Company
(Blue Bird), NHTSA stated that the sentence in S<IP_ADDRESS>, ``In the case
of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two
force applications to release the exit,'' was incorrect. The agency
stated that the sentence was meant to read: ``In the case of windows
with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force
applications to open.'' (Emphasis added.) That is to say, the agency
intended a window or roof exit with one release mechanism to be able to
be opened with only two force applications: One force application that
undoes the release mechanism and a second force application that opens
the exit. The concern with the strict wording of the standard is that
it could be read as specifying that two force applications are used to
activate the single mechanism and that a third force application is
applied to open the exit. This NPRM proposes to correct the wording so
that it states more clearly what the agency had intended (described
below). It should be noted that this rulemaking is primarily a
housekeeping measure; we believe that all emergency window and roof
exits are currently manufactured to meet the requirements that the
agency had intended.
    Accordingly, the agency proposes the following changes. NHTSA
believes that S5.3.2, S<IP_ADDRESS>, and S5.3.3 would be clearer if the
requirements for releasing the mechanism(s) are separated from the
requirements for opening the exit. NHTSA proposes to specify, for exits
with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force
applications to open. For exits with two release mechanisms, there
shall be a total of three force applications to open the exit: one
force application shall be applied to each of the two mechanisms to
release the mechanism, and another force shall be applied to open the
exit.
    NHTSA proposes that if made final, these amendments to the force
application requirements take effect one year after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register, with early optional compliance
permitted. To the agency's knowledge, all emergency window and roof
exits are currently manufactured to meet the proposed requirements.
However, to the extent that changes may be necessitated to meet the
proposed requirements, NHTSA believes one year should be sufficient
time to implement the changes. Comments are requested on these issues.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA believes that
there will be no costs associated with this proposed rule. We believe
that all vehicles currently meet the proposed changes discussed in this
NPRM.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that if made final, this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If made final, this proposed rule
would not substantively change existing FMVSS No. 217 requirements for
small businesses that are school bus manufacturers.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposal pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the proposal does not have federalism implications because it does 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.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's proposal. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive
effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: ``When a
motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State
or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that unavoidably preempts
State legislative and administrative law, not today's rulemaking, so
consultation would be unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption: State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers,
including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When
such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda
Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). However, NHTSA has considered the
nature and purpose of today's proposal and does not currently foresee
any potential State requirements that might conflict with it. Without
any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number. There are no collections of information associated with
this notice of proposed rulemaking. Thus, the Paperwork Reduction Act
would not apply.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress,
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    After carefully reviewing the available information, NHTSA has
determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to
this rulemaking, as this NPRM seeks to clarify existing FMVSS No. 217
requirements.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure
by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of more than $100 million annually.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this NPRM.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in

the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in
the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477 at 19478).

V. Public Participation

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\2\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the methods discussed in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this NPRM.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth at the beginning of this NPRM.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion
for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the DOT Docket by going to the street address
given above under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.217 is amended by:
    a. Revising S5.3.2(a), S5.3.2(b)(1) and (b)(2), S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), and
the first sentence of S<IP_ADDRESS>;
    b. Redesignating S<IP_ADDRESS> as S<IP_ADDRESS>;
    c. Adding a new S<IP_ADDRESS> (a) and (b), S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>.1;
    d. Revising the first sentence of newly redesignated paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>;
    e. Adding S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 following S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(3); and,
    f. Revising Figure 3D.
    The revised, redesignated and added text and figure read as
follows:

Sec.  571.217  Standard No. 217; Bus emergency exits and window
retention and release.

* * * * *
    S5.3.2 * * *
    (a) When tested under the conditions of S6., both before and after
the window retention test required by S5.1, each emergency exit not
required by S5.2.3 shall allow manual release of the exit by a single
person, from inside the passenger compartment, using force applications
each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) or S<IP_ADDRESS>(b).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2010, [this date
has been inserted for illustration purposes], each exit described in
S5.3.2(a) shall have not more than two release mechanisms. In the case
of exits with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two
force applications to release the exit. In the case of exits with two
release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one force application
to release the exit. At least one of the force applications for each
exit shall differ from the direction of the initial motion to open the
exit by not less than 90[deg] and no more than 180[deg]. The force
applications for the mechanism(s) must conform to either (a) or (b) of
S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    (2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010, [this
date has been inserted for illustration purposes], each exit described
in S5.3.2(a) shall have no more than two release mechanisms. For exits
with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force
applications to open the exit: one force application shall be applied
to the mechanism and another force application shall be applied to open
the exit. The force application for the release mechanism must differ
by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from the
direction of the initial motion to open the exit. For exits with two
release mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force applications
to open the exit: one force application shall be applied to each of the
two mechanisms to release each mechanism, and another force shall be
applied to open the exit. The force application for at least one of the
release mechanisms must differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more
than 180 degrees from the direction of the initial motion to open the
exit. The force applications for the mechanism(s) must conform to
either S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) or S<IP_ADDRESS>(b), as appropriate.

    S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) Low-force application.
    (1) Location. As shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3.
    (2) Type of motion. Rotary or straight.
    (3) Magnitude. Not more than 90 N.
    (b) High-force application.
    (1) Location. As shown in Figure 2 or Figure 3.
    (2) Type of motion. Straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit
surface.
    (3) Magnitude. Not more than 270 N.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> * * *
    (a) Location: Within the high force access region shown in Figure
3A for a side emergency exit door, within the high force access region
shown in both Figure 3D(1) and Figure 3D(2) for an interior release
mechanism for a rear emergency exit door, and within the high force
access region shown in Figure 3D(1) for an exterior release mechanism
for a rear emergency exit door.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2010, [this
date has been inserted for illustration purposes], when tested under
the conditions of S6, both before and after the window retention test
required by S5.1, each school bus emergency exit window must allow
manual opening of the exit by a single person, from inside the
passenger compartment, using not more than two release mechanisms
located in specified low-force or high-force regions (at the option of
the manufacturer) with force applications and types of motions that
conform to either S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) or (b) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010,
[this date has been inserted for illustration purposes], when tested
under the conditions of S6., both before and after the window retention
test required by S5.1, each school bus emergency exit window must allow
manual opening of the exit by a single person, from inside the
passenger compartment. Each exit shall have no more than two release
mechanisms. The mechanism(s) must be located in either the specified
low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer),
with force applications and types of motions that conform to either
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) or (b) of this section, as appropriate. For exits with
one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to
open the exit. The force application for the release mechanism must
differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from
the direction of the initial motion to open the exit. For exits with
two release mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force
applications to open the exit: one force application shall be applied
to each of the two mechanisms to release each mechanism, and another
force shall be applied to open the exit. The force application for at
least one of the release mechanisms must differ by not less than 90
degrees and not more than 180 degrees from the direction of the initial
motion to open the exit. Each release mechanism shall operate without
the use of remote controls or tools, and notwithstanding any failure of
the vehicle's power system. When a release mechanism is unlatched and
the vehicle's ignition is in the ``on'' position, a continuous warning
shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity
of that emergency exit.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 The mechanism(s) must be located in either the specified
low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer),
with force applications and types of motions that conform to either
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) or (b) of this section depending upon the location of the
mechanism.
    (a) Emergency exit windows--Low-force application.
    (1) Location: Within the low-force access regions shown in Figures
1 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
    (2) Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 90 N.
    (b) Emergency exit windows--High-force application.
    (1) Location: Within the high-force access regions shown in Figures
2 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
    (2) Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed
exit surface.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 180 N.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2010, [this
date has been inserted for illustration purposes], when tested under
the conditions of S6, both before and after the window retention test
required by S5.1, each school bus emergency roof exit shall allow
manual opening of the exit by a single person from both inside and
outside the passenger compartment, using not more than two release
mechanisms located in specified low-force or high-force regions (at the
option of the manufacturer) with force applications and types of
motions that conform to either S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) or (b) of this section. * *
*
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010,
[this date has been inserted for illustration purposes], when tested
under the conditions of S6, both before and after the window retention
test required by S5.1, each school bus emergency roof exit must allow
manual opening of the exit by a single person, from inside the
passenger compartment. Each exit shall have no more than two release
mechanisms. The mechanism(s) must be located in either the specified
low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer),
with force applications and types of motions that conform to either
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) or (b) of this section, as appropriate. For exits with
one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to
open the exit. The force application for the release mechanism must
differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from
the direction of the initial motion to open the exit. For exits with
two release mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force
applications to open the exit: One force application shall be applied
to each of the two mechanisms to release each mechanism, and another
force shall be applied to open the exit. The force application for at
least one of the release mechanisms must differ by not less than 90
degrees and not more than 180 degrees from the direction of the initial
motion to open the exit.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 The mechanism(s) must be located in either the specified
low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer),
with force applications and types of motions that conform to either
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) or (b) of this section depending upon the location of the
mechanism.
    (a) Emergency roof exits--Low-force application.
    (1) Location: Within the low force access regions shown in Figure
3B, in the case of buses whose roof exits are not offset from the plane
specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(5). In the case of buses which have roof exits
offset from the plane specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(5), the amount of offset
shall be used to recalculate the dimensions in Figure 3B for the offset
exits.
    (2) Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 90 N.
    (b) Emergency roof exits--High-force application.
    (1) Location: Within the high force access regions shown in Figure
3B, in the case of buses whose roof exits are not offset from the plane
specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(5). In the case of buses which have roof exits
offset from the plane specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(5), the amount of offset
shall be used to recalculate the dimensions in Figure 3B for the offset
exits.
    (2) Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed
exit surface.

    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 180 N.
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE09.000

    Issued on: December 11, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-30324 Filed 12-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32273-32275]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 147

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0448]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; DEEPWATER HORIZON at Mississippi Canyon 252 Outer
Continental Shelf MODU in the Gulf of Mexico

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a continued safety zone around
the riser for the DEEPWATER HORIZON, a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
(MODU), at Mississippi Canyon 252 in the Outer Continental Shelf. The
safety zone in place pursuant to the Temporary Final Rule at docket
USCG-2010-0323 terminates on May 26, 2010. This safety zone is needed
to protect personnel involved in oil pollution response efforts.
Continuing the safety zone around the riser will significantly reduce
the threat of collisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and
thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment. Oil
pollution response efforts are taking place on the water's surface and
subsurface.

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR on June 8, 2010 through August
26, 2010. This rule is effective with actual notice for purposes of
enforcement on May 26, 2010 and will remain in effect through August
26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0448 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0448 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Dr. Madeleine McNamara, U.S. Coast
Guard, District Eight Waterways Management Coordinator; telephone 504-
671-2103<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable due to the
emergency nature of the operations. Immediate action is necessary to
protect first responders and to prevent entry into the area that is
most impacted by the oil spill.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Good cause exists because
immediate action is necessary to protect first responders and to
prevent entry into the area that is most impacted by the oil spill.

Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the deepwater area
of the Gulf of Mexico in response to the sinking of the DEEPWATER
HORIZON, a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU), near Mississippi
Canyon 252 with a center point at 28-44-18N and 088-21-54W.
    The safety zone is located in the location of the riser attached to
the seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf. The safety zone is
established to protect both environmental responders and the
environment. Efforts are underway to stop the flow of oil using
submersible remote operating vehicles. In evaluating this request, the
Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several
criteria, including but not limited to, (1) the level of shipping
activity around the facility, (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard
the facility, (3) concerns for the environment, (4) the likeliness that
an allision would result in a catastrophic event based on proximity to
shipping fairways, offloading operations, production levels, and size
of the crew, (5) the volume of traffic in the vicinity of the proposed
area, (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the
proposed area, and (7) the structural configuration of the facility. We
have determined that a safety zone is needed to protect persons and
vessels in the vicinity of the oil spill.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone encompassing all
areas within 500 meters around the position 28-44-18N and 088-21-54W.
The safety zone is located in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico
near Mississippi Canyon 252. For the purpose of this regulation, the
deepwater area is considered to be waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet)
or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)

contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to
a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the
breadth of the sea is measured. The deepwater area also includes an
extensive system of fairways. Navigation in the vicinity of the safety
zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels,
cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel.
    Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the
criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the
establishment of a safety zone of 500 meters around the position 28-44-
18N latitude and 088-21-54W longitude. The regulation will reduce
significantly the threat of collisions, allisions, oil spills, and
releases of natural gas and increase the safety of life, property, and
the environment in the Gulf of Mexico by prohibiting entry into the
zone unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast
Guard District.
    In accordance with the general regulations located at 33 CFR part
147, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized
by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16 or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the
location of the riser for the MODU DEEPWATER HORIZON--on the Outer
Continental Shelf--and its distance from both land and safety fairways.
Vessels traversing waters near the proposed safety zone will be able to
safely travel around the zone without incurring additional costs.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in Mississippi Canyon block 252.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact or a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will enforce a safety zone around a MODU that is in an area of the
Gulf of Mexico not frequented by vessel traffic and is not in close
proximity to a safety fairway. Further, vessel traffic can pass safely
around the safety zone without incurring additional costs.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction, from further environmental documentation since
implementation of this action will not result in any significant
cumulative impacts on the human environment; does not involve a
substantial change to existing environmental conditions; and is
consistent with Federal, State, and/or local laws or administrative
determinations relating to the environment. This rule involves
establishing a safety zone.
    Pursuant to paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an environmental
checklist and a categorical exclusion checklist are available in the
docket indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 147 as follows:

PART 147--SAFETY ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  147.T08-849 to read as follows:

Sec.  147.T08-849  DEEPWATER HORIZON Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
Safety Zone.

    (a) Location. All areas within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) around the
position of the riser at 28-44-18N and 088-21-54W are part of a safety
zone. This area surrounds the DEEPWATER HORIZON, a Mobile Offshore
Drilling Unit (MODU), that sank in the deepwater area of the Gulf of
Mexico near Mississippi Canyon 252. The riser, which is attached to the
seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf, is still in place and
discharging oil.
    (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
except the following:
    (1) An attending or first response vessel; or
    (2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District or a designated representative.

    Dated: May 24, 2010.
J.E. Tunstall,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 2010-13644 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P