[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50482-50483]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23632]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0277]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Hub Group
Trucking Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the Hub Group Trucking Inc. (HGT) has
requested an exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD)
requirements to permit an alternative grandfather period for any
commercial motor vehicles added to HGT's fleet after the December 18,
2017, compliance date. HGT reports that all of its 2,700 trucks are
equipped with automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs) and it
expects to add at least 160 trucks to its fleet in 2018. If the
exemption is granted it would allow HGT to equip the additional trucks
with AOBRDs instead of the required ELDs until the company's full
transition to ELDs can be accomplished. HGT is confident that its
AOBRD-compliant approach between December 18, 2017, and its full
transition to ELDs by the end of 2018, would achieve a level of safety
that is at least equivalent to the level of safety that would be
obtained by strict compliance with a mixed AOBRD-ELD fleet.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2017-0277 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251
     Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The online FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2017-0277), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2017-0277'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant
to the application, including any safety analyses that have been
conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than,

the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR
381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting
the application and, if granted, the name of the person or class of
persons receiving the exemption, and the regulatory provision from
which the exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the
effective period and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption.
The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    HGT reports that it is an interstate motor carrier based in Oak
Brook, Illinois with 23 terminal locations throughout the United
States. HGT operates 2,700 trucks and utilizes approximately 2,700
drivers. The vast majority of HGT's trucks service the intermodal
sector of freight transportation. All of HGT's trucks are currently
equipped with AOBRDs and the entire fleet has been AOBRD compliant
since late 2010.
    The current ELD rule under section 49 CFR 395.15 includes a
grandfather provision for a compliant AOBRD that a motor carrier
installs and requires its drivers to use before the compliance date of
December 18, 2017. A motor carrier may continue to use grandfathered
AOBRDs no later than December 16, 2019.
    HGT is requesting a limited exemption from the ELD rule to allow
any truck added to its fleet after December 17, 2017, to be equipped
with an AOBRD in lieu of an ELD until full transition to ELDs for all
of its fleets can be accomplished. HGT reports that the company plans
to add at least 160 new trucks and drivers to its fleet in 2018 to
accommodate growth in its business. If the exemption is granted, it
would cover these new trucks and drivers.
    HGT contends that the company will face several challenges running
two different electronic logging systems at the same time if the
exemption is not granted. Challenges such as the complexity of managing
the data in the back office, and more importantly, complexities in
training and managing drivers and staff likely to use both systems.
    According to HGT, with two systems, a company its size will create
some roadside inspection enforcement-related challenges for the driver,
enforcement officials involved, and for HGT's safety compliance staff.
HGT further contends that it faces the expense of updating a legacy
database to fully populate the new ELD header. HGT's InfoTrak database
currently does not contain at least three data elements that must be
included in the new ELD ``print/display daily header.'' Data elements
include the driver's name, the driver's license State, and the truck
number. HGT reports that it recently spent substantial resources to
migrate to a new system that will contain all of the data fields and
information needed to auto-populate the required ELD header. Without
the exemption, HGT will be forced to spend a great deal of time and
money to reprogram its legacy system to ensure compliance for the time
between December 18, 2017, and the time in 2018 when HGT implements its
new system and fully transitions to ELDs network-wide.
    According to HGT, its AOBRD-compliant approach between December 18,
2017, and its full transition to ELDs by the end of 2018, will achieve
a level of safety that is at least equivalent to the level of safety
that would be obtained by strict compliance with a mixed AORBD-ELD
fleet. The requested exemption is for two years.
    A copy of HGT's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

    Issued on: October 18, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-23632 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38828-38829]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1335; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-19]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Captiva, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule: delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the effective date of a final rule,
published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2013, establishing
controlled airspace at Upper Captiva Island Heliport, Captiva, FL, to
allow additional time for en route charting.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC. The effective date of the final rule
published on June 6, 2013 is delayed from June 27, 2013 to August 22,
2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation
by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part
51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication
of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 6, 2013, the FAA published a final rule, in the Federal
Register establishing Class E airspace at Upper Captiva Island
Heliport, Captiva, FL, (78 FR 33967). Subsequent to publication, the
FAA found that the effective date of June 27, 2013 did not allow
sufficient time for coordination with FAA's aeronautical data charting
service, thereby making this action necessary.
    The Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6005
of FAA order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Final Rule Delay of Effective Date

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the
effective date on Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-19, for the establishment
of Class E airspace at Upper Captiva Island Heliport, Captiva, FL, as
published in the Federal Register of June 6, 2013, (78 FR 33967), FR
Doc. 2013-13105, is delayed from June 27, 2013, to August 22, 2013.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 19, 2013.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-15287 Filed 6-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11434-11435]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0952]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Victoria Barge Canal,
Bloomington, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the method of operation for the
Victoria Barge Canal Railroad Bridge (``bridge'') across the Victoria
Barge Canal, mile 29.4, at Bloomington, Victoria County, Texas. This
final rule makes permanent the change in method of operation to allow
the bridge owner to operate the bridge remotely from a dispatching
center in Spring, Texas. This final rule increases the efficiency of
operations while allowing for the safe navigation of vessels through
the bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective March 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type [USCG-
2014-0952]. In the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Geri Robinson; Bridge Administration Branch, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On December 30, 2014, we published a temporary deviation from
regulations; request for comments (TD) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Victoria Barge Canal, Bloomington, Texas'' in the Federal
Register (79 FR 78304). We received no comments on this temporary
deviation. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. However,
a contractor raised an issue regarding the requirements of dispatchers
to contact the vessels when a vessel entered the two-mile bridge zone.
In response to this concern, the Coast Guard decided that prior to
issuance of a final rule, further comments would be accepted under an
interim rule.
    On July 10, 2015, the Coast Guard published an interim rule with
request for comments entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Victoria Barge Canal, Bloomington, Texas'' in the Federal Register (80
FR 39683). The interim rule allowed mariners to continue transit while
the bridge was being remotely operated and comment as to whether the
proposed method of operation was sufficient to ensure the safety of
vessels transiting the area. We did not receive any comments on the
interim rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The bridge owner, the Victoria County Navigation District, in
conjunction with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) requested permission
to remotely operate the Victoria Barge Canal Railroad Bridge across the
Victoria Barge Canal, mile 29.4 at Bloomington, Victoria County, Texas.
Traffic on the waterway consists of commercial traffic--primarily
vessels and tows providing services to the Port of Victoria, and no
reported recreational traffic transits the waterway. The vertical lift
bridge has a vertical clearance of 22 feet above high water in the
closed-to-navigation position and 50 feet above high water in the open-
to-navigation position.
    Presently, the bridge opens on signal for the passage of vessels in
accordance with 33 CFR 117.991. Under the Temporary Deviation published
on December 30, 2014, and the interim rule published on July 10, 2015,
this bridge has been remotely operated for the past year and mariners
will not notice any changes to the ongoing method of operation of the
bridge.
    This final rule allows all vessels utilizing this stretch of the
waterway to continue to transit the waterway unencumbered while
providing for the bridge owner to operate the bridge from a remote
location. Vessel operators should not see any changes in the efficiency
of vessel movements as the bridge will still be required to open on
signal for the passage of vessels.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    As discussed above, a temporary deviation was published on December
30, 2014, and an interim rule was published on July 10, 2015. The Coast
Guard provided separate 60-day comment periods for the temporary
deviation and the interim rule. No comments were received and no
changes to the final rule have been made.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge. This final rule allows all
vessels utilizing this stretch of the waterway to continue to transit
the waterway unencumbered while providing for the bridge owner to
operate the bridge from a remote location. Vessel operators should not
see any changes in the efficiency of vessel movements as the bridge
will still be required to open on signal for the passage of vessels.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. 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 may be
small entities: The property owners, vessel operators and waterway
users who wish to transit on Victoria Barge Canal daily. However, this
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities for the following reasons: A test deviation was
conducted and an interim rule was published and no opposition in
response to the test or interim rule was received by the Coast Guard
Office of Bridge Administration. Further, through pre-coordination and
consultation with property owners, vessel operators and waterway users,
this operating schedule accommodates all waterway users with minimal
impact.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    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.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim rule
amending 33 CFR part 117 that published at 80 FR 39683 on July 10,
2015, is adopted as a final rule without change.

    Dated: February 19, 2016.
David R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-04827 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 200)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53402-53403]
[DOCID:fr19oc09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0504; Airspace Docket No. 09-AGL-7]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tioga, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Tioga, ND. Additional
controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Tioga Municipal
Airport, Tioga, ND. This action also amends the geographic coordinates
of Tioga Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance
the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at
Tioga Municipal Airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 31, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Tioga, ND,
reconfiguring controlled airspace at Tioga Municipal Airport, Tioga,
ND. (74 FR 38142, Docket No. FAA-2009-0504). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9T signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E airspace at Tioga, ND, adding additional
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Tioga Municipal Airport, Tioga, ND, for the safety and management of
IFR operations. This action also amends the geographic coordinates of
Tioga Municipal Airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is

not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Tioga Municipal Airport, Tioga, ND.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Tioga, ND [Amended]

Tioga, Tioga Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]22[min]49[sec] N., long. 102[deg]53[min]51[sec] W.)
Minot AFB, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]24[min]57[sec] N., long. 101[deg]21[min]29[sec] W.)
Williston VORTAC
    (Lat. 48[deg]15[min]12[sec] N., long. 103[deg]45[min]02[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Tioga Municipal Airport and within 4
miles either side of the 133[deg] bearing from the Tioga Municipal
Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.2 miles southeast
of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface bounded on the north by latitude
49[deg]00[min]00[sec] N, on the east by the 47-mile radius of Minot
AFB, on the south by V-430, on the southwest by the 21.8-mile radius
of the Williston VORTAC, and on the west by the North Dakota/Montana
state boundary.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on Oct 1, 2009.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-24619 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 76477-76479]
[DOCID:fr27de05-72]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52980; File No. SR-NASD-2005-134]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Status of Registered Persons and Sole
Proprietors Serving in the Armed Forces of the United States

December 19, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 15, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD.
NASD has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD is proposing to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to (1) clarify that the
scope of the relief provided in the IM extends to any registered person
of a firm who volunteers for or is called into active military duty,
not just registered representatives; (2) codify the staff's existing
interpretation with respect to the receipt of transaction-related
compensation by registered persons who volunteer for or are called into
active military duty; (3) clarify that the relief provided to a
registered person of a firm who volunteers for or is called into active
military duty is available to the person during the period that such
person remains registered with the firm, regardless of whether the
person returns to employment at a different firm upon completion of his
or her active military duty; and (4) clarify that the ``inactive''
status designation is available to registered persons and sole
proprietors who volunteer for or are called into active duty in the
Armed Forces of the United States and is available to them only while
they remain on active military duty.
    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *
B. SCHEDULE A TO NASD BY-LAWS
* * * * *
IM-1000-2. Status of [Sole Proprietors and Registered Representatives]
Persons Serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
    (a) Inactive Status of Currently Registered Persons
    (1) A[ny] [R]registered [Representative] person of a member who
volunteers for or is called into active duty in the Armed Forces of the
United States shall be placed, after proper notification to [the
Executive Office] NASD, upon inactive status and need not be re-
registered by such member upon his or her return to active employment
with the member. Such a person will remain eligible to receive
transaction-related compensation, including continuing commissions,
because he or she remains registered with a member of NASD. The
employing member also may allow such a person to enter into an
arrangement with another registered person of the member to take over
and service the person's accounts and to share transaction-related
compensation based upon the business generated by such accounts.
However, since such persons are inactive, they may not perform any of
the duties performed by a registered person.

[Any member (Sole Proprietor) who temporarily closes his or her
business by reason of volunteering or being called into the Armed
Forces of the United States, shall be placed, after proper notification
to the Executive Office, on inactive status until his or her return to
active participation in the investment banking and securities
business.]

    (2) A [R]registered [Representative] person who is placed on
inactive status [as set forth above] pursuant to this paragraph (a)
shall not be included within the definition of ``Personnel'' for
purposes of the dues or assessments as provided in Article VI of the
NASD By-Laws.
    [Any member placed on inactive status as set forth above shall not
be required to pay dues or assessments during the pendency of such
inactive status and shall not be required to pay an admission fee upon
return to active participation in the investment banking and securities
business.]
    (3) A [R]registered [Representative] person who is placed on
inactive status [as set forth above] pursuant to this paragraph (a)
shall not be required to complete either of the Regulatory or Firm
Elements of the continuing education requirements set forth in Rule
1120 during the pendency of such inactive status.
    (4) The relief provided in subparagraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3)
shall be available to a registered person who is placed on inactive
status pursuant to this paragraph (a) during the period that such a
person remains registered with the member with which he or she was
registered at the beginning of active duty in the Armed Forces of the
United States, regardless of whether the person returns to active
employment with another member upon completion

of his or her active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States.
    (5) The relief described in this paragraph (a) will be provided
only to a person registered with a member and only while the person
remains on active military duty.

(b) Inactive Status of Sole Proprietorships

    (1) A member that is a sole proprietor who temporarily closes his
or her business by reason of volunteering for or being called into
active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States, shall be placed,
after proper notification to NASD, on inactive status while the member
remains on active military duty.
    (2) A sole proprietor member placed on inactive status as set forth
in this paragraph (b) shall not be required to pay dues or assessments
during the pendency of such inactive status and shall not be required
to pay an admission fee upon return to active participation in the
investment banking and securities business.
    (3) The relief described in this paragraph (b) will be provided
only to a sole proprietor member and only while the person remains on
active military duty.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, NASD has provided tailored
regulatory relief to securities industry professionals who volunteer
for or are called into active military duty. Most notably, in January
2002, NASD filed with the SEC for immediate effectiveness a rule change
that amended NASD IM-1000-2 to codify the staff's position regarding
the relief from NASD Rule 1120 (Continuing Education Requirements) for
securities industry professionals who volunteer for or are called into
active military duty.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45259 (January 9,
2002), 67 FR 2256 (January 16, 2002) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Relieve Registered
Representatives Serving in the Armed Forces From Continuing
Education Requirements) (SR-NASD-2002-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD IM-1000-2 currently permits a firm to place a registered
representative on ``inactive'' status while serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States. Such ``inactive'' status excuses a registered
representative from continuing education obligations, waives dues and
assessments, and ensures that he or she is not subject to the two-year
expiration period for securities licenses of persons who cease to be
registered with a member (``two-year licensing expiration
provisions'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NASD Rules 1021(c), 1031(c), and 1041(c) provide that if a
person does not register with a member within two years of his or
her last registration, his or her qualification as a principal,
representative, or assistant representative will lapse and the
person must then retest to function as a principal, representative,
or assistant representative. In the case of a person on ``inactive''
status due to active military duty, because he or she is considered
registered for purposes of NASD Rules, the ``two-year licensing
expiration provisions'' do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, following discussions with the SEC staff, NASD
published on its Web site guidance that provides that ``inactive''
registered persons serving in the Armed Forces of the United States may
receive transaction-related compensation, provided that they do not
perform any functions of a registered person while on ``inactive''
status.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Registered Persons on Active Military Duty (available
at: http://www.nasd.com/ web/idcplg?IdcService=SS-- GET--

PAGE&ssDocName =NASDW--014635&ssSourceNodeId= 1091). The NASD
staff's interpretation with respect to the receipt of transaction-
related compensation by registered persons serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States is consistent with the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc.'s (``NYSE'') interpretation to NYSE Rule 345(a),
which the NYSE codified in June 2002. See NYSE Interpretation
Handbook, NYSE Rule 345(a)/03. Telephone conversation between Mia
Zur, Attorney, Jan Woo, Attorney, Division, Commission, and Afshin
Atabaki, Counsel, NASD, dated December 8, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD has recently received requests for further clarification on
the scope of NASD IM-1000-2 and the accompanying guidance. In
particular, members have questioned whether the IM applies to
registered persons other than registered representatives and whether
registered persons can receive commissions on accounts that have been
temporarily re-assigned in their absence. Members also have questioned
the manner in which the relief applies if a registered person seeks
employment with a different member upon completing active military
duty.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Some members have questioned whether the return of a
registered person who volunteers for or is called into active
military duty to employment at a different member would negate or
invalidate the relief the person has received while being deemed
``inactive'' at his original employing member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NASD is proposing the following amendments to NASD IM-
1000-2 to clarify its scope and codify NASD's existing guidance with
respect to the receipt of transaction-related compensation by
registered persons actively serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States.
    First, NASD is proposing to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to clarify that
the scope of the relief provided in the IM extends to any registered
person of a member who volunteers for or is called into active military
duty, not just registered representatives.
    Second, NASD is proposing to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to expressly
state that a registered person of a member who volunteers for or is
called into active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States and
who is placed on ``inactive'' status will remain eligible to receive
transaction-related compensation, including continuing commissions,
because he or she remains registered with a member of NASD. In
addition, NASD is proposing to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to provide that an
employing member may allow such a person to enter into an arrangement
with another registered person of the member to take over and service
the person's accounts and to share transaction-related compensation
based upon the business generated by such accounts. NASD also is
proposing to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to state that such ``inactive''
persons may not perform any of the duties performed by a registered
person. As noted above, the proposed amendments are consistent with
NASD's existing interpretation with respect to the receipt of
transaction-related compensation by registered persons actively serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States, as well as the NYSE's
interpretation to NYSE Rule 345(a).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The relief regarding the ongoing receipt of transaction-
based compensation does not extend to a sole proprietor member
placed on ``inactive'' status pursuant to NASD IM-1000-2. Rather,
consistent with current practice, NASD staff, in consultation with
SEC staff, will address such issues in the context of a sole
proprietor member placed on ``inactive'' status on a case-by-case
basis. See NYSE Interpretation Handbook, NYSE Rule 345(a)/03.
Telephone conversation between Mia Zur, Attorney, Jan Woo, Attorney,
Division, Commission, and Afshin Atabaki, Counsel, NASD, dated
December 8, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, NASD is proposing to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to clarify that
the

relief provided to a registered person of a member who volunteers for
or is called into active military duty is available to the person
during the period that such person remains registered with the member,
regardless of whether the person returns to employment at a different
member upon completion of his or her active military duty. Accordingly,
under the proposal, NASD will not rescind the relief provided to such a
person simply because he or she decides to register with another member
upon completion of his or her active military duty. For instance, if a
registered person of Firm Y who volunteers for or is called into active
military duty and who is placed on ``inactive'' status with Firm Y
decides to register with Firm Z upon completion of her active military
duty, NASD will not invalidate the relief that was provided to the
person while on ``inactive'' status with Firm Y.
    Fourth, NASD is proposing to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to clarify that
the ``inactive'' status designation is available to registered persons
and sole proprietors who volunteer for or are called into active duty
in the Armed Forces of the United States and is available to them only
while they remain on active military duty. Therefore, under the
proposal, a registered person who is placed on ``inactive'' status
pursuant to NASD IM-1000-2 will be removed from ``inactive'' status if
the person ceases to be registered with a member while serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States.\10\ If he or she re-registers with a
member while still serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, he
or she will again be eligible for ``inactive'' status pursuant to the
IM. Further, under the proposal, a registered person or sole proprietor
who is placed on ``inactive'' status pursuant to NASD IM-1000-2 will be
removed from ``inactive'' status if the registered person or sole
proprietor is no longer on active military duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In conjunction with this filing, NASD is filing a proposed
rule change with the Commission to address the status of persons who
terminate their registration with a member while on active military
duty and persons who commence their active military duty within two
years after they have ceased to be registered with a member,
including the application of the ``two-year licensing expiration
provisions'' to such persons. See SR-NASD-2005-135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD is proposing to implement the proposed rule change immediately
upon filing with the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that NASD's rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change provides
appropriate tailored relief to persons actively serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States in a manner consistent with NASD's goals of
investor protection and market integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\13\ in
that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization.
NASD has proposed to implement the rule change immediately upon filing
with the Commission. NASD will announce the proposed rule change in a
Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days after SEC
Notice of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2005-134 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-134. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NASD. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASD-2005-134 and should be submitted on or before
January 17, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7839 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Benefits of NPDES eReporting Tools for the Region 6

Offshore Oil & Gas Permit

Overview

Using Regional funds of approximately $127,000, and headquarters staff
and contract funds of approximately $1.3 million, EPA Region 6 has
changed the Offshore Oil & Gas NPDES General Permit program from a state
of minimal support for a historically paper-based process to a fully
supported new electronic approach—requiring a fraction of the
previously-needed Full Time Equivalents (FTE).

Background

While EPA Region 6 was preparing to reissue the offshore general permit
for the deep water Gulf of Mexico region it was determined that, based
on events in the Gulf over the past several years, the Region needed to
develop a permit that would ensure that more comprehensive data would be
collected, and that compliance language would be strengthened. The goal
of Region 6 was to make certain that the environmental protections
extended to our sensitive gulf waters and coastal environments would be
felt for many years to come, as EPA would finally have a vehicle and
adequate tools to ensure environmental compliance in the Gulf of Mexico.

The updated monitoring requirements envisioned would almost triple the
data received and made available to EPA and the public. In addition, the
permit universe would cover approximately 36,000 facilities operating a
variety of exploration and production technologies for the extraction of
oil and gas deposits in the deep waters of the gulf. No other permit
would cover such a variety of changing operations, or the potential for
changing data sets at the same location. The Region 6 permit required
facilities to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain permit coverage
and these NOIs needed to fit a variety of operations and outfall types
on a large scale.

Recognizing that this new data collection effort would be a potential
issue with the offshore community, the Agency made the critical decision
to streamline the reporting process by developing an electronic
reporting tool. Through this tool, facilities can submit their data
electronically to EPA’s database (ICIS-NPDES). The electronic version
also automatically establishes the permittee in the ICIS-NPDES, and sets
up the permit limits and reporting requirements.

Summary of Benefits

Since deploying the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT) in October 2012, Region
6 has realized—and will continue to realize—a variety of benefits.
For example, staff are no longer required to manually enter data for
NOIs, Notices of Termination (NOT), or limits. Data entry has been
decreased by 1.5 FTEs, or approximately $225,000, by deploying the NeT.

In addition to current savings, the combination of NeT and NetDMR,
EPA’s online tool for electronic reporting of Discharge Monitoring
Report (DMR) data, will allow Region 6 to realize even greater savings
in the future. Region 6 would have needed an additional 3.5 FTEs, or
approximately $525,000 per year, to complete the work manually. By
completing this work electronically, the funds that otherwise would have
went to FTEs can be utilized for mission-critical projects. By March
2014, Region 6 anticipates seeing the most substantial cost savings. By
that time, over 2 million parameters (i.e., data elements) will be
entered into NetDMR per quarter.

Furthermore, Region 6 estimates that without deploying the electronic
reporting tools, NeT and NetDMR, data entry would have cost EPA
approximately $2.6 million during a five-year permit life cycle. The
projected benefits of electronic reporting are significant to EPA’s
bottom line.

In addition to the budgetary advantages of electronic reporting, NetDMR
has significantly improved data entry and data quality. In the past,
Region 6 was understaffed for data entry positions and was unable to
enter large amounts of DMR data. As a result, DMR data entry was
sporadic, thus creating data gaps in ICIS-NPDES and making it difficult
to detect violations and manage the program. This has changed with the
implementation of electronic reporting. The NeT and NetDMR programs have
also increased transparency for regulators, and for the public, while
providing better tools for ensuring compliance in a fair and reasonable
fashion.

Figure 1: NeT Forms Submitted by Certifier

Oct 2012- July 2013

Figure 2: NeT Forms Submitted via Batch and

Accepted by ICIS-NPDES

Oct 2012- July 2013

Conclusion

The offshore permit process described here was the first General Permit
in the nation that established electronic submission of all data through
EPA’s electronic reporting tools (NeT and NetDMR). This effort, while
offering numerous benefits for both EPA and industry, has set the stage
for future electronic submittals of NOIs and other general permit forms
for other NPDES permits.

Figure 3:  NeT Forms Signed by Certifier and

Submitted to ICIS-NPDES

Oct 2012- July 2013

 Assumes an average loaded FTE rate of $150,000

EPA Region 6 Electronic NOI Case Study	 Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES
2

Page |   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

Without deploying the electronic tools, data entry would have cost EPA
approximately $2.6 million during a five-year permit cycle.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47535-47536]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19315]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0311; FRL-9687-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the
definition of volatile organic compound (VOC). We are approving a local
rule that helps regulate VOCs under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 9, 2012 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 10, 2012. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0311, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating this rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date that it was
amended by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Local agency            Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted/amended      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento....................         101  General Provisions and            10/27/11.........  02/23/12
                                             Definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 13, 2012, EPA determined that the submittal for SMAQMD
Rule 101 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 101 into the SIP on March
19, 1999 (adopted October 27, 1998).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. This rule was developed as part of the local
agency's program to control these pollutants.
    Sacramento Rule 101, General Provisions and Definitions, is being
amended to update the Exempt Compounds list to conform to the Exempt
Compounds list of the EPA.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating this rule?

    This rule describes administrative provisions and definitions that
support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. In
combination with the other requirements, these rules must be
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we used to
evaluate enforceability requirements consistently includes the Bluebook
(``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (``Guidance
Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA
Region 9, August 21, 2001).

B. Does this rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do

not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it
without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of
the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments by September
10, 2012, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take
effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action
based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments,
the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on
October 9, 2012. This will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 10, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(411)(i)(A)(2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (411) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rule 101, ``General Provisions and Definitions,'' amended on
October 27, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2012-19315 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71354-71356]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 225

[FRA-2008-0136, Notice No. 5]
RIN 2130-ZA10

Adjustment of Monetary Threshold for Reporting Rail Equipment
Accidents/Incidents for Calendar Year 2013

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule increases the rail equipment accident/incident
reporting threshold from $9,500 to $9,900 for certain railroad
accidents/incidents involving property damage that occur during
calendar year 2013. This action is needed to ensure that FRA's
reporting requirements reflect cost increases that have occurred since
the reporting threshold was last published in November of 2011.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kebo Chen, Staff Director, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office
of Safety Analysis, RRS-22, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor, Room
W33-314, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-
493-6079); or Gahan Christenson, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief
Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, Room W31-204,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-
1381).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A ``rail equipment accident/incident'' is a collision, derailment,
fire, explosion, act of God, or other event involving the operation of
railroad on-track equipment (standing or moving) that results in
damages to railroad on-track equipment, signals, tracks, track
structures, or roadbed, including labor costs and the costs for
acquiring new equipment and material, greater than the reporting
threshold for the year in which the event occurs. 49 CFR 225.19(c).
Each rail equipment accident/incident must be reported to FRA using the
Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report (Form FRA F 6180.54). 49 CFR
225.19(b) and (c). As revised, effective in 1997, paragraphs (c) and
(e) of 49 CFR 225.19 provide that the dollar figure that constitutes
the reporting threshold for rail equipment accidents/incidents will be
adjusted, if necessary, every year in accordance with the procedures
outlined in appendix B to part 225 to reflect any cost increases or
decreases.

New Reporting Threshold

    Approximately one year has passed since the rail equipment
accident/incident reporting threshold was revised. 76 FR 72850
(November 28, 2011). Consequently, FRA has recalculated the threshold,
as required by Sec.  225.19(c), based on increased costs for labor and
increased costs for equipment. FRA has determined that the current
reporting threshold of $9,500, which applies to rail equipment
accidents/incidents that occur during calendar year 2012, should
increase by $400 to $9,900 for equipment accidents/incidents occurring
during calendar year 2013, effective January 1, 2013. The specific
inputs to the equation set forth in appendix B (i.e., Tnew = Tprior *
[1 + 0.4(Wnew-Wprior)/Wprior + 0.6(Enew-Eprior)/100]) to part 225 are:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Tprior                  Wnew                  Wprior                  Enew                 Eprior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             $9,500              $25.56943              $24.92646              191.50000             186.36667
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where: Tnew = New threshold; Tprior = Prior threshold (with reference
to the threshold, ``prior'' refers to the previous threshold rounded to
the nearest $100, as reported in the Federal Register); Wnew = New
average hourly wage rate, in dollars; Wprior = Prior average hourly
wage rate, in dollars; Enew = New equipment average Producer Price
Index (PPI) value; Eprior = Prior equipment average PPI value. Using
the above figures, the calculated new threshold, (Tnew) is $9,890.62,
which is rounded to the nearest $100 for a final new reporting
threshold of $9,900.

Notice and Comment Procedures

    In this rule, FRA has recalculated the monetary reporting threshold
based on the formula discussed in detail and adopted, after notice and
comment, in the final rule published December 20, 2005, 70 FR 75414.
FRA has found that both the current cost data inserted into this pre-
existing formula and the original cost data that they replace were
obtained from reliable Federal government sources. FRA has found that
this rule imposes no additional burden on any person, but rather
provides a benefit by permitting the valid comparison of accident data
over time. Accordingly, finding that notice and comment procedures are
either impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,
FRA is proceeding directly to the final rule.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies
and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and 13563 in addition to DOT policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979)).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small
entities, unless the Secretary certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to Section 312 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), FRA has issued a final policy
that formally establishes ``small entities'' as including railroads
that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class III
railroad. 49 CFR part 209, app. C. For other entities, the same dollar
limit in revenues governs whether a railroad, contractor, or other
respondent is a small entity. Id. About 719 of the approximately 764
railroads in the United States are considered small entities by FRA.
FRA certifies that this final rule will have no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. To the extent that
this rule has any impact on small entities, the impact will be neutral
or insignificant.
    The frequency of rail equipment accidents/incidents, and therefore
also the frequency of required reporting, is generally proportional to
the size of the railroad. A railroad that employs thousands of
employees and operates trains millions of miles is exposed to greater
risks than one whose operation is substantially smaller. Small
railroads may go for months at a time without having a reportable
occurrence of any type, and even longer without having a rail equipment
accident/incident. For example, current FRA data indicate that 2,693
rail equipment accidents/incidents were reported in 2007, with small
railroads reporting 364 of them. Data for 2008 show that 2,481 rail
equipment accidents/incidents were reported, with small railroads
reporting 294 of them. In 2009, 1,910 rail equipment accidents/
incidents were reported, and small railroads reported 271 of them. In
2010, 1,902 rail equipment accidents/incidents were reported, with
small railroads reporting 258 of them. In 2011, 2010 rail equipment
accidents/incidents were reported, with small railroads reporting 267
of them. On average for those five calendar years, small railroads
reported about 13% (ranging from 12% to 14%) of the total number of
rail equipment accidents/incidents. FRA notes that these data are based
on accidents/incidents reported by railroads with less than 400,000
employee hours per year. FRA's accident reporting regulations require
railroads to report employee hours; thus for purposes of 49 CFR part
225, FRA has historically categorized and displayed the data in this
manner. Of the approximately 764 railroads in the United States, 731
fit into the category of less than 400,000 employee hours per year and
the characteristics of such railroads are substantively similar to
railroads otherwise considered small entities in accordance with FRA's
policy. Accordingly, because the number and characteristics of these
railroads are consistent with those otherwise considered small entities
FRA believes that this approach is appropriate. FRA notes, however,
that these data are accurate as of the date of issuance of this final
rule, and are subject to minor changes due to additional reporting.
Absent this rulemaking (i.e., any increase in the monetary reporting
threshold), the number of reportable accidents/incidents would
increase, as keeping the 2012 threshold in place would not allow it to
keep pace with the increasing dollar amounts of wages and rail
equipment repair costs. Therefore, this rule will be neutral in effect.
Increasing the reporting threshold will slightly decrease the
recordkeeping burden for railroads over time. Any recordkeeping burden
will not be significant and will affect the large railroads more than
the small entities, due to the higher proportion of reportable rail
equipment accidents/incidents experienced by large entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new information collection requirements associated
with this final rule. Therefore, no estimate of a public reporting
burden is required.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, entitled, ``Federalism,'' signed on August
4, 1999, requires that each agency ``in a separately identified portion
of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal
Register, provide[] to the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget a federalism summary impact statement, which consists of a
description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with State
and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the
agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a
statement of the extent to which the concerns of the State and local
officials have been met * * *'' This rulemaking action has been
analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in
Executive Order 13132. This rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States, or on the distribution of power and the
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in the Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, FRA has determined that this
rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a
federalism assessment. Accordingly, a federalism assessment has not
been prepared.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this regulation in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures)
(64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)) as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes,
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this regulation is not a major FRA action (requiring
the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures.
64 FR 28545, 28547 (May 26, 1999). In accordance with section 4(c) and
(e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no
extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this

regulation that might trigger the need for a more detailed
environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this regulation is
not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) [currently $143,100,000] in any one year, and
before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of
proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written
statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. The final rule will not result in
the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $143,100,000 or more in any one
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking: That (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13211. FRA has determined that this final rule is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that this regulatory action
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 13211.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and 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.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 225

    Investigations, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends part 225 of chapter
II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 225--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 20107, 20901-02,
21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49.

0
2. Amend Sec.  225.19 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)
and revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  225.19  Primary groups of accidents/incidents.

* * * * *
    (c) Group II--Rail equipment. Rail equipment accidents/incidents
are collisions, derailments, fires, explosions, acts of God, and other
events involving the operation of on-track equipment (standing or
moving) that result in damages higher than the current reporting
threshold (i.e., $6,700 for calendar years 2002 through 2005, $7,700
for calendar year 2006, $8,200 for calendar year 2007, $8,500 for
calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar year 2009, $9,200 for calendar
year 2010, $9,400 for calendar year 2011, $9,500 for calendar year
2012, and $9,900 for calendar year 2013) to railroad on-track
equipment, signals, tracks, track structures, or roadbed, including
labor costs and the costs for acquiring new equipment and material. * *
*
* * * * *
    (e) The reporting threshold is $6,700 for calendar years 2002
through 2005, $7,700 for calendar year 2006, $8,200 for calendar year
2007, $8,500 for calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar year 2009,
$9,200 for calendar year 2010, $9,400 for calendar year 2011, $9,500
for calendar year 2012 and $9,900 for calendar year 2013. The procedure
for determining the reporting threshold for calendar years 2006 and
beyond appears as paragraphs 1-8 of appendix B to part 225.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 26, 2012.
Melissa L. Porter,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-28925 Filed 11-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60733]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0846]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Narrow Bay, Smith Point, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Smith Point Bridge, 6.1, across Narrow Bay, between Smith Point and
Fire Island, New York. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge
rehabilitation. This deviation allows the bridge to open only one of
the two moveable spans for the passage of vessel traffic.

DATES: This deviation is effective from September 26, 2011 through
December 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0846 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0846 in the
``Keyword'' 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 rule,
call or e-mail Ms. Judy Leeung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Smith Point Bridge, across Narrow Bay,
mile 6.1, between Smith Point and Fire Island, New York, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water and 18
feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed
at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
    The waterway users are recreational vessels of various sizes.
    The owner of the bridge, Suffolk County Department of Public Works,
requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to facilitate
bridge rehabilitation, repairs to the bascule spans. During the bridge
repairs only one moveable span will be opened for the passage of vessel
traffic.
    The main navigation channel provides 55 feet of horizontal
clearance with unobstructed vertical clearance during a bridge opening.
    During this temporary deviation the main channel will only provide
27.5 feet of horizontal clearance with unobstructed vertical clearance
during a bridge opening.
    The Coast Guard believes that this temporary deviation should meet
the reasonable needs of navigation because the recreational users that
normally use this bridge are recreational vessels that can safely pass
through a 27.5 foot horizontal clearance due to their relative small
size. In addition, most of the above recreational vessels do not
operate during the fall and winter months when this deviation will be
in effect.
    Under this temporary deviation the Smith Point Bridge may open only
one of the two moveable spans for the passage of vessel traffic between
September 26, 2011 and December 21, 2011.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 13, 2011.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-25179 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P