[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 103 (Thursday, May 28, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31969-31978]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1118]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes new, deep-water anchorage grounds
for the Hampton Roads area near Cape Charles, VA, and increases the
size and relocates the existing quarantine anchorage from near Cape
Charles to further south in the lower Chesapeake Bay. The intended
effect is to protect the environment, facilitate safe navigation of
maritime commerce and national defense assets, and more safely and
effectively support commercial vessel anchoring needs in the lower
Chesapeake Bay.

DATES: This rule is effective June 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1118 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or

email Lieutenant Commander Peter Francisco, Waterways Management
Division Chief, Sector Virginia, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-
5581, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Jerry Barnes, Waterways
Management Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Table of Abbreviations
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
III. Discussion of Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
and Changes
    A. Anchorage Location
    B. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance
    C. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Compliance
    D. General Environmental Concerns
    E. Solid Waste, Coal Residue, Oil, and Air Pollution Concerns
    F. Sewage Pollution and Requests for No-Discharge Zone
    G. Risk of Vessels Dragging Anchor
    H. Concerns About Views From Shore
    I. Concerns About Vessel Congestion and Anchorage Duration
    J. Concerns About Negative Impact on Fisheries
    K. Concerns About Light Pollution
    L. Concerns About Noise Pollution Risks
    M. Risks of Ballast Water Discharge and Invasive Species
Concerns
    N. Security Concerns
    O. Requests That Vessels Delay Arrival or Remain at Sea Instead
of Anchoring
    P. Requests That the Coast Guard Develop an Anchoring Management
Plan
    Q. Requests To Extend the Comment Period
    R. Anchorage Proponents
IV. Discussion of the Final Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Impact on Small Entities
    C. Collection of Information
    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Environment

I. Table of Abbreviations

AIS Automatic Identification System
ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
NM Nautical miles
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
VADEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    After considering public responses to a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), including feedback from several public meetings, the
Coast Guard is establishing a new commercial anchorage ground,
Anchorage R,\1\ approximately 3 nautical miles (NM) west of Cape
Charles, VA, and is increasing the size and relocating the existing
quarantine anchorage from there to a more secluded location in the
lower Chesapeake Bay, approximately 6 NM southwest of Fishermans
Island, VA. The Coast Guard initiated this rulemaking to address growth
in both size and volume of vessels entering the Hampton Roads area, the
subsequent need for additional deep draft anchorage space, and the
growing trend of deep draft vessels anchoring in the waters of the
Chesapeake Bay between York Spit Channel and the town of Cape Charles,
VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Anchorage Boundary Development'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 19, 2016, we published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) \2\ to solicit public comments on amending certain
anchorage regulations in Hampton Roads for the possible creation of a
new anchorage in the lower Chesapeake Bay near Cape Charles, VA. We
received 35 written responses to the ANPRM. On June 27, 2016, we
published a 45-day extension to the comment period and announced two
public meetings.\3\ On August 16, 2016, we announced one additional
meeting and reopened the comment period.\4\ We scheduled the meetings
to receive comments on the ANRPM to allow for greater public
involvement. The meetings were held in Norfolk, VA, on July 19, 2016;
Melfa, VA, on July 20, 2016; and Cape Charles, VA, on August 17, 2016.
We heard from 20 speakers at these meetings. On December 16, 2016, we
issued a news release \5\ to inform the public that a review of
comments and an environmental study would be conducted. In November
2017, we completed an environmental review.\6\ In January 2018, the
Center for Disease Control, the U.S. Navy Fleet Forces Command, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic provided comments \7\
identifying and addressing adverse impacts from the proposed anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 81 FR 22939, April 19, 2016.
    \3\ 81 FR 41487, June 27, 2016.
    \4\ 81 FR 54531, August 16, 2016.
    \5\ See ``Fifth District News Press Release'' in the docket.
    \6\ See ``Preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration'' in
the docket.
    \7\ See ``Comments from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Navy
Fleet Forces Command, and Center for Disease Control'' in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, 2018, after reviewing the oral and written comments in
response to the ANPRM, the Coast Guard developed a proposed rule and
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).\8\ The proposed
anchorage in the NPRM modified the initially considered anchorage size,
shape, and location to place the eastern border of the proposed
anchorage further from the coast of Cape Charles and also proposed
relocating the existing quarantine anchorage. As part of the NPRM, we
announced three public meetings. One meeting was held in Norfolk, VA,
on June 25, 2018 and two in Cape Charles, VA on July 10, 2018, one at 1
p.m. and the other at 6 p.m. At the three public meetings, 124 members
of the community signed in and 72 members asked questions or stated
their opinion of the proposal. The Captain of the Port (COTP), Coast
Guard Sector Virginia (formerly named Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads
prior to February 6, 2020 \9\), as well as staff from the Fifth Coast
Guard District were present to answer questions and solicit public
comment for the rulemaking docket. A total of 84 individuals and
organizations submitted comments to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 83 FR 29081, June 22, 2018.
    \9\ 85 FR 6804, February 6, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking are found in 33
U.S.C. 471; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to
propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorage grounds.

III. Discussion of Comments on NPRM and Changes

    This section provides a detailed discussion of public comments
received during the NPRM's comment period and public meetings. We
received 84 written submissions to the docket in response to the NPRM.
In addition, we hosted three public meetings to provide forums for
obtaining public feedback on the NPRM.\10\ We received no comments
specifically addressing the relocation and increase in size of
Anchorage Q, the quarantine anchorage. Therefore, we made no changes in
the regulatory text to Anchorage Q. While some comments were supportive
of new Anchorage R, the majority expressed concern with the Coast
Guard's proposed action to establish it. The comments we received
spanned a range of topics, including

consideration of alternative anchorage locations; compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); compliance with the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA); risks of solid waste, coal residue, oil,
and air pollution; requests for a no-discharge zone; risk of vessels
dragging anchor; view from the shore; vessel congestion; negative
impact on fisheries; risks of light pollution; risks of sewage
discharge, risks of noise pollution; risks from ballast water
discharges; security concerns; requests that vessels delay arrival or
remain at sea; and requests for the Coast Guard to develop an anchoring
management plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``2018 Public Meetings Summary'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Anchorage Location

    Vessels may anchor at any location absent specific restrictions.
Many commenters opposed Anchorage R's proximity to Cape Charles, VA,
and suggested the Coast Guard review other locations in the Hampton
Roads area as alternatives, whether elsewhere in the Chesapeake Bay or
offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
    A review of historical automatic identification system (AIS) data
shows that vessels have been anchoring in the location of Anchorage R
for years. The quarantine anchorage for the Hampton Roads area prior to
this final rule, previous Anchorage Q, was located in waters that make
up a portion of new Anchorage R. The quarantine anchorage, described in
the current 33 CFR 110.168(a)(6) and visible on the 2019 version of
U.S. Nautical Chart 12224,\11\ was sited immediately east of the
northern entrance to York Spit Channel and approximately 3.5 NM west of
Cape Charles. We established it in 2005 because the previous quarantine
anchorage did not provide adequate depth for visiting ships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``NC12224_2019'' in the docket, which is a copy of U.S.
Nautical Chart 12224, 28th Edition, corrected through February 26,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Background and Purpose'' section of that final rule \12\
identified anchorage berth K-3 in the Middle Ground waters off Newport
News as the previous Hampton Roads quarantine anchorage, explaining
that it was discontinued because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers no
longer maintained it. Historical versions of U.S. Nautical Chart 12245
from 2004 \13\ and earlier show charted depths in anchorage K-3 of less
than 25 feet, which is too shallow for use by visiting deep draft
vessels. The 2005 final rule further explained that we established the
new quarantine anchorage in ``naturally deep water with charted depths
in excess of 60 feet.'' This decision to locate the quarantine
anchorage so far from its previous location (an approximately 43 NM
channel transit) demonstrates that this area was the next best
location, given the lack of maintained deep draft anchorages closer to
the port, for meeting the port's concerns regarding navigational
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 70 FR 29953, May 25, 2005.
    \13\ See ``Anchorage K-3'' in the docket, which is an excerpt of
U.S. Nautical Chart 12245, 63rd Edition, May 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we reviewed AIS data from 2011 through 2017 \14\ to
identify historical anchoring practices of cargo ships visiting the
Hampton Roads area. The data show that deep draft vessels were
anchoring outside the maintained federal channel in the vicinity of
Anchorage R throughout those years, which contributed to the Coast
Guard proposing the anchorage. The AIS data show that deep draft
vessels also anchored in designated anchorages closer to port
facilities, including Anchorages A and B (in Lynnhaven Roads) which are
controlled by the U.S. Navy.\15\ The only other area not designated for
anchorage where deep draft vessels were shown to anchor was the area of
Lynnhaven Roads between Cape Henry Channel and Thimble Shoals Channel,
immediately east of Tail of the Horseshoe Lighted Buoy 2T (Light List
Number 7065) and approximately 2 NM north of Cape Henry, in the Naval
Restricted Area described in 33 CFR 334.320. Beginning in 2015,
increased Department of Defense and U.S. Navy use of Anchorages A and B
and the finding of unexploded ordnance in the Naval Restricted Area,
posing hazards to vessels should unexploded ordnance become fouled in
anchors, displaced the vessels anchoring in those locations. This, in
addition to growth in both size and volume of vessel traffic entering
the Hampton Roads area, resulted in a growing number of vessels needing
deep water anchorage grounds. As previously discussed, the best
available deep water anchoring location in the Hampton Roads area were
the waters east of York Spit Channel. AIS data show the growth of
vessels anchoring there from 2011 through 2017.\16\ The data also show
the reduction of commercial cargo vessels anchoring in the Lynnhaven
Roads area beginning in 2015 \17\ and declining so that no commercial
cargo vessels are shown to anchor there in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``Historical Anchorage Use'' in the docket.
    \15\ 33 CFR 110.168(e)(1).
    \16\ Slides 1-6 of ``Historical Anchorage Use'' in the docket.
    \17\ Slides 7-12 of ``Historical Anchorage Use'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is apparent that deep draft vessels bound for Hampton Roads
ports have chosen this area as the best available safe anchorage and
will continue anchoring in the waters adjacent to York Spit Channel.
Given the additional safety, security, and environmental protections
provided by officially designating the waters as anchorage grounds, we
are establishing Anchorage R with this rule.
    Some commenters recommended we identify offshore anchoring options.
We considered establishing an additional offshore quarantine anchorage
prior to publishing the NPRM.\18\ This notional anchorage was sited
approximately 11 NM east of Virginia Beach, VA, immediately northeast
of the entrance to the southern traffic separation scheme approaching
Chesapeake Bay. We considered this location because it provided
suitably deep water, was outside restricted zones, and was still within
our geographic authority to establish anchorage grounds. However, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers noted \19\ that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration warned of unexploded ordnance in the area
per note B of U.S. Nautical Chart 12221.\20\ This could pose dangers to
vessels anchoring there. Additionally, U.S. Fleet Forces Command
recommended against establishing the offshore anchorage \21\ because it
would interfere with critical U.S. Navy training activities. Therefore,
we determined no viable offshore location is available to meet the
anchorage needs of visiting deep draft vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See graphic on page 2, red outline of Outer Quarantine
Anchorage of the ``Record of Environmental Consideration'' in the
docket.
    \19\ See page 1 of ``Comments from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Navy Fleet Forces Command, and Center for Disease Control'' in
the docket.
    \20\ See ``NC12221_2019'' in the docket, which is a copy of U.S.
Nautical Chart 12221, 84th Edition, corrected through June 28, 2019.
Note B is printed on the tan graphic of land south of Cape Charles
in approximate position N 36[deg]12', W 075[deg]58'.
    \21\ See page 3 of ``Comments from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Navy Fleet Forces Command, and Center for Disease Control'' in
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters requested we clarify why we chose this particular
location to establish an anchorage. As explained above, we considered
the loss of traditional anchorage areas in the Hampton Roads area,
historical anchorage data and practices, the possibility of offshore
anchorages, and the concerns for the safety and security of commercial
and naval vessels when establishing this anchorage ground. We believe
this rule provides additional controls over vessels anchoring there,

and provides an additional level of safety and environmental oversight.
    One commenter suggested that due to AIS carriage requirements, only
large commercial vessels were considered when determining the location
of the anchorage grounds. Among other categories, 33 CFR 164.46(b)(1)
specifies that AIS is required for all commercial vessels 65 feet or
more in length, and towing vessels of 26 feet or longer and that have
more than 600 horsepower. The Coast Guard examined the tracks of
pleasure craft, sailing vessels, passenger and other vessels transiting
the waters in and near Anchorage R including shallow draft vessels that
call on Cape Charles. While AIS carriage is voluntary for many vessels,
we believe sufficient data exists, and the location and size of
Anchorage R accommodates the needs of large commercial vessels and
safeguards routes used by smaller vessels. The southernmost boundary of
Anchorage R established by this rule is intended to keep large
commercial ships from anchoring within routes used predominately by
smaller vessels to navigate to and from Cape Charles Harbor, such as
Cherry Stone Channel Inlet. The Coast Guard maintains that applying
Hampton Roads anchorage regulations to these waters improves navigation
safety.
    One comment stated ``[t]here have been six closures of the Cape
Charles Beach since the Coast Guard established this vessel anchorage
just off the shore of the town of Cape Charles.'' This comment
incorrectly characterizes both the Coast Guard regulation and the
timeline for establishing the anchorage. As mentioned above, data show
vessels have been anchoring in the waters between York Spit Channel and
the town of Cape Charles for years without Coast Guard direction or
influence. Although this anchorage was suggested in our 2016 ANPRM and
proposed in our 2018 NPRM, it will be ``Coast Guard established'' when
it becomes effective 30 days after this final rule is published in the
Federal Register.

B. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

    A number of comments suggested the Coast Guard is not meeting NEPA
requirements by addressing the action using a categorical exclusion and
not providing an environmental impact statement. The Coast Guard
disagrees. In the above paragraphs, we document the practice of vessels
anchoring in and around Anchorage R. This practice is not due to Coast
Guard implemented plans or actions; rather, it is the result of larger
and deeper draft vessels calling on the Port of Virginia and the loss
of available deep draft anchorage areas due to naval operations and the
potential for unexploded ordinance. Regulations establishing or
increasing the size of anchorage grounds generally do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and
as such, are normally categorically excluded from further review. This
is further discussed in Section V.F below. We continue to view the
categorical exclusion as appropriate and are making no changes to the
rule from the NPRM based on these comments.

C. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Compliance

    Two Commonwealth of Virginia agencies, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) \22\ and the Marine Resources
Commission,\23\ responded separately with the presumption that the
Coast Guard would conduct a CZMA consistency review with the
Commonwealth of Virginia for establishing the anchorage grounds. The
VADEQ cited the federal regulations \24\ that implement CZMA, 15 CFR
930.31, stating that they viewed this rulemaking as reasonably and
foreseeably altering the uses of the coastal zone and should therefore
be subject to a federal consistency determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See ``Comment Submitted by Bettina Rayfield, Commonwealth
of Virginia'' in the docket.
    \23\ See ``Comment Submitted by Randy Owen, Commonwealth of
Virginia, Marine Resources Commission'' in the docket.
    \24\ 15 CFR 930 subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing the anchorage grounds does not create the practice of
anchoring at Anchorage R, as vessels have been anchoring in the waters
between York Spit Channel and the town of Cape Charles, VA for years.
This practice will continue regardless of the Coast Guard's action. Any
effects associated with this activity are already occurring and will
continue to occur. The Coast Guard's ability to limit or preclude this
activity is derived from its navigational safety authority. By imposing
this rule, we are attempting to increase navigational safety of the
existing users by extending existing regulations that govern anchoring
practices in the Hampton Roads area to waters currently being used for
anchoring by deep draft commercial vessels. Thus, the Coast Guard
provided a no effects determination under 15 CFR 930.35, and we sent a
letter \25\ notifying the VADEQ of our negative determination on
November 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See ``USCG letter to VADEQ, Nov 7, 2019'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our letter prompted discussions with VADEQ, which included VADEQ
forwarding to the Coast Guard via email a letter from the Marine
Resources Commission dated December 5, 2019,\26\ and a conference call
regarding the Coast Guard's negative determination on January 6,
2020.\27\ The VADEQ formally objected to our negative determination in
a letter \28\ dated January 16, 2020, and maintained that insufficient
information was supplied to determine if the Coast Guard's action is
consistent with the Commonwealth's Fisheries Management and Subaqueous
Land Management enforceable policies. We reviewed these policies and
did not find any applicable to the Coast Guard's action. Subsequent
conversations with the VADEQ yielded no specific examples of
inconsistent enforceable policies. It is our assessment that the VADEQ
is focused on potential effects rather than on whether or not the Coast
Guard's action could be the cause of those effects.\29\ We maintain
that this administrative safety regulation does not cause any effects
on the coastal zone, and that our rule is consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the CZMA enforceable policies promulgated by
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See ``VAMRC letter, Dec 5, 2019'' in the docket.
    \27\ See ``USCG letter to VADEQ, Jan 9, 2020'' and ``VADEQ
letter to USCG, Jan 10, 2020'' in the docket.
    \28\ See ``VADEQ letter to USCG, Jan 16, 2020'' in the docket.
    \29\ See ``USCG letter to VADEQ, Feb 5, 2020'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. General Environmental Concerns

    Currently, vessels anchor in the areas surrounding existing
Anchorage Q between York Spit Channel and Cape Charles, VA, with no
limitation to how many vessels may anchor in the area or how close to
shore they may anchor. Numerous concerns submitted in the comments
regarding the environment appear to address this current condition. We
share these concerns, and by establishing Anchorage R, we are
addressing environmental concerns in three ways.
    First, creating this anchorage as part of 33 CFR 110.168 means that
we are applying to these waters the anchorage regulations applicable to
all other anchorage grounds in the Hampton Roads area, found in 33 CFR
110.168(c), ``General regulations.'' These regulations address port
coordination and congestion, time limits, and vessel seaworthiness and
readiness while also providing the COTP discretion in prescribing
conditions and anchoring locations for vessels. The suite of
regulations improves the overall safety

of the port and vessels anchoring in it. This reduces risks of
collisions, groundings, and other incidents, which, in turn, reduces
the overall environmental risk in those locations. Second, we are
creating two additional requirements for vessels using Anchorage R,
which we discuss in further detail in Section III.E below and have
published in the regulatory text at the end of this document in Sec.
110.168(e)(10). Third, by establishing the anchorage, we are
establishing boundaries for the vessels using those waters, limiting
the number of vessels anchoring in the vicinity of Cape Charles to
around 30 depending on vessel size, and locating vessels so that they
anchor approximately no closer than 3 nautical miles from shore. Thus,
we conclude this administrative action positively impacts the
environment.

E. Solid Waste, Coal Residue, Oil, and Air Pollution Concerns

    A number of comments mentioned concerns regarding pollution from
anchoring ships and requested the Coast Guard implement programs to
monitor and reduce pollution potential. In the preamble to the
NPRM,\30\ we described the suite of international and federal treaties,
laws, and regulations that protect navigable waters of the United
States from pollution discharge from vessels. While those protections
remain in place, we are further addressing pollution risks by adding
requirements specifically for Anchorage R that were not proposed in the
NPRM. New Sec.  110.168(e)(10), ``Anchorage R,'' adds two requirements
in addition to the general regulations for vessels using the anchorage.
First, no vessel may transfer oil or chemicals in bulk to any other
vessel without permission of the COTP. This provides the COTP the
ability to control the conditions of lightering or transfer operations.
Second, a non-self-propelled vessel (like a barge) must be tended by a
towing vessel unless otherwise given permission by the COTP. This
reduces the risk of vessels without the means of propulsion of breaking
away or dragging anchor and then causing harm to themselves or other
vessels by grounding or collision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See section III.1, second paragraph of ``Anchorage Grounds;
Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA'' on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter noted that, with winds out of the west, an oil spill
from one of the vessels would arrive at the shore (approximately 7
hours) long before the vessel's contracted oil spill response
organization is required to show up (24 hours), and suggested the Coast
Guard pre-stage additional spill response resources on Virginia's
Eastern Shore. Section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA), amended by Section 4202, requires the preparation and
submission of response plans by the owners or operators of certain
vessels.\31\ Plan holders, through their response plans, must address
the extremely complex system for assembling, mobilizing, and
controlling response resources to maintain statutory compliance as well
as being prepared to oil spills within their area of operation. Plan
holders are required to submit a response plan to the Coast Guard that
identifies and ensures, by contract or other approved means, the
availability of response resources (personnel and equipment) necessary
to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case discharge,
including a discharge resulting from fire or explosion, and to mitigate
or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge. We believe the
additional restrictions placed on anchored vessels by this rule
intended to significantly decrease the likelihood of an oil spill,
combined with existing laws and regulations in place to prevent,
mitigate, and respond to oil spills from vessels, are enough. Thus, we
made no changes from the proposed rule to address local oil spill
response capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Implementing regulations are found in 33 CFR part 155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Sewage Pollution and Requests for No-Discharge Zone

    Twenty-three written comments and additional oral comments from
public meetings expressed concern about the discharge of sewage into
Chesapeake Bay in the area of the proposed anchorage. Regulations allow
vessels to discharge treated effluent from Type I or II Marine
Sanitation Devices in most parts of Chesapeake Bay. Untreated sewage
may not be discharged. Sewage requirements are outlined in Section 312
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322), with
further regulations issued by the Coast Guard and the EPA found in 33
CFR 159.7 and 40 CFR part 140, respectively.\32\ Given the suite of
laws and regulations already in place to address sewage from ships, we
are making no changes to address sewage concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See the EPA website providing an overview of vessel sewage
discharge laws and regulations: https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel-sewage-discharges-statutes-regulations-and-related-laws-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifteen comments expressed concern regarding either incomplete or
ineffective treatment of sewage, or of the nutrient levels contained in
properly treated effluent, and stated that no sewage discharges should
take place at all within the proposed anchorage area. Many of these
called for the creation of a no-discharge zone concurrently with the
anchorage. The creation of a no-discharge zone is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking. The EPA may establish a no-discharge zone for certain
geographic areas when requested by a state.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See the EPA website discussing no discharge zones: https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel-sewage-discharges-no-discharge-zones-ndzs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One comment recommended the Coast Guard ensure Regional Response
Team III \34\ was aware of the recommendations to create a no-discharge
zone and to ask the Team to consider creating a no-discharge zone
throughout the Chesapeake Bay. The Coast Guard sees that notification
to the state, and not the Regional Response Team, is the more
appropriate notification to ensure appropriate authorities are aware of
the requests. Because Anchorage R is entirely within Commonwealth of
Virginia waters, we sent a letter \35\ dated November 7, 2019 to the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,\36\ notifying them of
this rulemaking and the comments received requesting consideration of a
no-discharge zone. Due to the concerns regarding navigation safety and
vessel proximity to shore, we are not delaying publication of this rule
while other authorities consider the requests for a no-discharge zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Regional Response Team III is the regional component of the
National Response System within which the Chesapeake Bay fully
resides. For more information on the Team, visit: https://www.nrt.org/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=35.
    \35\ See document titled ``USCG letter to VADEQ, Nov 7, 2019''
in the docket.
    \36\ The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is the
state agency with authority of Virginia's No Discharge Zone Program:
https://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/TMDL/NoDischargeZoneDesignations.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Risk of Vessels Dragging Anchor

    Some comments expressed concerns with risks of ships dragging
anchor. In the preamble to the NPRM,\37\ we described existing
regulations intended to minimize the chances of vessels dragging
anchor. Some of these regulations apply to all deep draft vessels
operating in U.S. waters, but some are specific to the regulations for
vessels using Hampton Roads, VA, anchorages, including Sec.
110.168(c)(8), (9), (10), and (15). Additionally, we

created a new requirement specific to Anchorage R, Sec.
110.168(e)(10)(ii) found in the regulatory text at the end of this
document which requires that a non-self-propelled vessel (like a barge)
must be tended by a towing vessel unless otherwise given permission by
the COTP. This reduces the risk of vessels without the means of
propulsion of breaking away or dragging anchor and causing harm to
themselves or other vessels by grounding or collision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See section III.1, third paragraph of ``Anchorage Grounds;
Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA'' on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One comment expressed concern regarding a cargo vessel grounding of
April 15, 2014, where a vessel dragged anchor under gale force winds
and grounded off the shore of Virginia Beach, VA. By creating Anchorage
R, we are requiring that vessels otherwise anchoring near the town of
Cape Charles have a higher state of readiness to prepare for and
respond to environmental conditions that could cause them to drag
anchor, like the sudden onset of gale force winds, and thus reduce the
chances of groundings, collisions, and pollution spills.

H. Concerns About Views From the Shore

    We received numerous comments opposing anchorage R due to the
negative impacts of view from the shore, including potential decreased
property values and diminished tourism appeal. As we note above,
vessels have been anchoring in the deep waters between York Spit
Channel and Cape Charles of their own volition and without anchorage
boundaries to guide them. In the NPRM,\38\ we explained how we changed
the boundaries of the anchorage described in the ANPRM in an effort to
propose an anchorage with boundaries that would keep vessels from
anchoring as close to shore as they had been (as close as 1.5 NM, or,
3,000 yards). The eastern boundary of the anchorage is designed to
anchor vessels no closer than approximately 2.8 NM from shore.
Considering the maximum number of vessels that visited those waters at
any one time in 2017 and 2018, we view the design of the anchorage as a
balanced fit between view concerns, available water for anchoring, and
peak usage. Therefore, we are not changing the boundary of the
anchorage from that proposed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See section III.4 of ``Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake
Bay, Cape Charles, VA'' on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Concerns About Vessel Congestion and Anchorage Duration

    Many comments noted concern about vessel congestion, suggesting
that the port complex should not be extending northward into the
Chesapeake Bay. The number of vessels calling on the Hampton Roads area
is beyond the Coast Guard's control, and denying vessels calling on the
port access to safe anchoring grounds is counter to safety and
environmental stewardship. We are establishing Anchorage R to provide
controls over those vessels choosing to anchor in the naturally deep
water near Cape Charles.
    Other comments noted concerns that vessel stays within the
anchorage should be limited and specified various lengths. The general
regulations for Hampton Roads anchorages (33 CFR 110.168(c)(2)) state
that except as otherwise provided, a vessel may not occupy an anchorage
for more than 30 days, unless the vessel obtains permission from the
COTP. Since no such time limit previously existed for vessels anchoring
in the area of Anchorage R (except those within the limits of old
Anchorage Q), vessels were able to remain anchored indefinitely. We
find that the 30-day limit is sufficient to address anchoring duration.

J. Concerns About Negative Impact on Fisheries

    Many comments raised general concerns about impacts to fisheries.
We contend that these comments are not applicable to the Coast Guard's
action of establishing the anchorage grounds for the same reasons
described in the discussions above regarding compliance with the NEPA
and the CZMA. The comments pertain to the presence and number of
vessels already anchoring in the area, not about the Coast Guard's
administrative controls this anchorage will provide. We find that the
action of establishing Anchorage R has no adverse effect; the risks to
fisheries from anchored vessels in the waters of Anchorage R pre-exist
the Coast Guard's designation of the anchorage. We are making no
changes based on these comments.

K. Concerns About Light Pollution

    A number of comments discussed concerns with potential interference
to migrating birds, light trespass, and non-conformance with
Northampton County requirements for dark sky-type lighting. Like other
pollution or water use concerns, we find the action of establishing
Anchorage R has no adverse effect; the existence of the lights from
anchored vessels in the waters of Anchorage R pre-exists the Coast
Guard's designation of the anchorage. We are making no changes based on
light pollution-related comments.
    One commenter cited a study concluding that artificial light at
night may have a negative effect on nocturnally migrating birds and
suggested the Coast Guard incorporate light pollution measures during
bird migration periods. We are not able to incorporate such measures
with this rulemaking. Vessels operating on U.S. waters are required to
follow the Inland Navigation Rules which govern the behavior of vessels
underway, at anchor, and in other conditions, including prescribing the
lights which vessels must exhibit. These rules \39\ require vessels
greater than 100 meters (328 feet) in length at anchor to illuminate
their decks and exhibit the fore and aft all-around lights required for
smaller vessels. Because the Inland Rules are both designed to be in
harmony with International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
and put specific responsibility on masters and crew to comply with
them,\40\ this rulemaking may not counter or interfere with the Inland
Rules. The Coast Guard may establish special anchorage areas, which
allow anchored vessels to be unlighted,\41\ but this type of anchorage
is not applicable for use at Anchorage R for two reasons. First,
unlighted vessels in these anchorage areas must be 65 feet or less in
length; the majority of vessels anchoring in the waters of Anchorage R
exceed this length. Second, such areas should be located where general
navigation will not be endangered by unlit vessels. The waters of
Anchorage R are located adjacent to York Spit Channel, the primary
north-south thoroughfare for deep draft vessels transiting the lower
Chesapeake Bay. Also, the anchorage ground itself is intended to be
navigated by vessels arriving and departing at night, where unlighted
vessels would increase navigation risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Rules for lighting anchored vessels are found in 33 CFR 83
subpart C, ``Lights and Shapes,'' Rules 20, 21, 22, and 30.
    \40\ Rule 1, ``Application,'' (33 CFR 83.01) describes the how
the Inland Navigation Rules interact with the international
community and preempt state and local rules ``within the same
field.'' Rule 2, ``Responsibility,'' (33 CFR 83.02) describes master
and crew responsibilities.
    \41\ See 33 CFR 109.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding light trespass and Northampton County lighting
requirements, Anchorage R requires vessels to anchor further from the
Northampton shoreline and is an improvement over the Coast Guard taking
no action. One comment requested the Coast Guard consider adding
lighting rules specific to Anchorage R that would be compatible with
the Northampton County Zoning Ordinance \42\ requirements. As

discussed above, this rulemaking may not counter lighting requirements
of the Inland Navigation Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ At the time of this rulemaking, general lighting standards
for Northampton County are found in section 154.2.112 of Northampton
Zoning Ordinance, on page 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Concerns About Noise Pollution Risks

    Many comments noted concerns of hearing noises made by ships,
adding to the nuisance of the vessels anchoring offshore Cape Charles.
We find that the action of establishing Anchorage R has no adverse
effect; the existence of the noise produced by anchored vessels in the
waters of Anchorage R pre-exists the Coast Guard's designation of
Anchorage R as an anchorage ground.

M. Risks of Ballast Water Discharge and Invasive Species Concerns

    A number of comments expressed concerns regarding the negative
impact on the environment caused by discharge of ballast water in
Anchorage R. One specifically warned that the proximity of the
anchorage to aquaculture sites increased those sites' exposure to
potential nonindigenous shellfish pathogens which could be introduced
by ships at anchor discharging ballast water. We find that the action
of establishing Anchorage R has no adverse effect; the risks posed by
vessels anchoring in the area existed before our designation of the
anchorage.
    Vessels carry ballast water to add weight in specific locations,
allowing the ship to control or maintain trim, draught, stability, or
hull stresses it encounters due to adverse sea conditions or changes in
cargo weight, fuel and water. We are committed to protecting U.S.
waters from invasive species and work closely with the international
community to find solutions that minimize ballast water risks while
maintaining maritime trade.\43\ Commercial vessels such as those that
anchor near Cape Charles, VA, as well as those that transit, anchor,
moor, or otherwise use waters in the Hampton Roads area must meet
federal requirements \44\ for ballast water management. These stipulate
that ballast water obtained in overseas coastal areas that might
contain invasive species be exchanged with ocean water 200 miles from
shore or treated with onboard systems to prevent the discharge of
viable living organisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See the USCG website for ballast water management
frequently asked questions: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/MSC/BWMS/Ballast_Water_FAQs.pdf?ver=2018-06-06-123015-850.
    \44\ Regulations for ballast water management in waters of the
United States are in 33 CFR part 151 subpart D. Further guidance for
ballast water management systems at the time of this rulemaking are
in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 01-18, ``Ballast Water
Management for Control of Non-indigenous Species in Waters of the
United States.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

N. Security Concerns

    Some comments asked whether having unattended foreign ships
anchored in the Chesapeake Bay is a security concern. Vessel security
is of vital importance, which is why the United States enacted the
Maritime Transportation Security Act and the Coast Guard issued
supporting regulations,\45\ and continues to work closely with the
international community in the implementation and enforcement of the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code.\46\ Together, these
requirements ensure seagoing vessels and their operating companies have
rigorous security requirements for training, security planning,
physical and operational security measures, and record keeping.
Furthermore, federal requirements mandate that U.S. vessels in
commercial service and foreign vessels entering port must provide an
advance notice of arrival \47\ to the Coast Guard. The vessel's notice
of arrival is vetted by numerous federal agencies to ensure compliance
with applicable safety and security laws prior to the vessel and its
crews entering U.S. waters. Regarding foreign crewmembers, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) screen and provide escort protocol for
those individuals who are seeking to go ashore. All crewmembers must
remain onboard the vessel unless clearance from CBP has been obtained.
As noted previously, we view the action of creating Anchorage R as
having no adverse effects; security requirements for anchored vessels
remain unchanged whether the anchorage exists or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 33 CFR part 104.
    \46\ See the International Maritime Organization site discussing
international maritime security requirements for vessels: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Security/Guide_to_Maritime_Security/Pages/SOLAS-XI-2%20ISPS%20Code.aspx.
    \47\ 33 CFR part 160, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

O. Requests That Vessels Delay Arrival or Remain at Sea Instead of
Anchoring

    Five comments recommended the Coast Guard consider requiring ships
to remain offshore or otherwise delay their arrival. In Section III.A
above, we explained that vessels have been anchoring in the vicinity of
Anchorage R with no restrictions and will continue to do so; the
logistical, safety, and economic factors that vessels consider when
determining whether to delay arrival are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. We have protocols for barring or delaying vessels from port
entry based on safety, security, and environmental compliance factors.
Every arriving vessel, whether destined for a pier or an anchorage, is
individually vetted against these factors. However, we do not bar a
vessel from port entry based on its intended destination alone.
    We received supporting comments describing the importance of having
safe, protected anchorage space for conducting maintenance and other
activities that would otherwise be too unsafe to conduct in offshore
conditions, noting the area of Anchorage R as the best location for
such activities in the Hampton Roads area. We made no changes based on
these comments.

P. Requests That the Coast Guard Develop an Anchoring Management Plan

    Five comments recommended the Coast Guard develop an anchor
management plan, some of which proposed specific provisions for the
Coast Guard to consider. We agree with the following two proposed
provisions and have amended the language of the regulation in this
final rule to meet the intent of the proposals:
    First, ``[n]o lightering, bunkering, or lube oil transfers shall
take place at Cape Charles Anchorage without the permission of the USCG
COTP.'' We agree and have included provisions about the transfer of oil
in new paragraph (e)(10)(i) of the regulatory text at the end of this
document.
    Second, ``[t]ugs with barges shall be in attendance of their tows
or barges. Any towing vessel that is departing the anchorage but
leaving its tow at anchor within the anchorage shall inform the USCG
COTP of the estimated time of returning to the barge, continuously
monitor VHF Channels 13 and 16, and by any means appropriate monitor
the position and status of the tow.'' We agree with the intent of the
proposal, and generally believe that no unattended barges should be
left at Anchorage R. We have added paragraph (e)(10)(ii) of the
regulatory text at the end of this document to address potential
dangers presented by unattended barges.
    We agree with the intent of the following proposed provisions we
have quoted below but, as indicated, we believe that they are already
fully addressed by existing, applicable regulations:
    ``Restrict vessel operation, in a hazardous area or under hazardous
conditions, to vessels which have particular operating characteristics
or capabilities which are considered necessary for safe operation under
the circumstances'' and ``restrict entering or

departing the anchorage in severe weather conditions.'' Existing
regulations require vessels bound for or departing from ports or places
within the navigable waters of the United States to notify the Coast
Guard of hazardous conditions either on board the vessel or caused by
the vessel or its operation. These regulations further provide the COTP
the authority to issue special orders to vessels when justified in the
interest of safety by reason of weather, visibility, sea conditions,
temporary port congestion, other temporary hazardous circumstances, or
the condition of the vessel.\48\ These regulations are sufficient to
insure the safety of the vessels during hazardous conditions, and fully
address the intent on the proposed provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 33 CFR 160 subparts B and C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Vessels shall display the appropriate anchoring lights at nights
and during periods of low visibility while at anchor.'' This is already
required by Rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 33 CFR 83.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Vessels required to carry and use Automatic Identification System
\50\ should operate their AIS while at anchor.'' This is already
required by 33 CFR 164.46(d)(2)(v), which mandates ``the continual
operation of AIS and its associated devices (e.g., positioning system,
gyro, converters, displays) at all times while the vessel is underway
or at anchor. . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 33 CFR 164.46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``A vessel must maintain an anchor watch and must have procedures
to detect a dragging anchor'' and ``No vessel may anchor in a `dead
ship' state (propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations)
without the prior approval of the USCG COTP and must have propulsion
available within 30 minutes in case of anchor dragging or other
situation.'' This is generally already addressed in navigation safety
regulations.\51\ Coast Guard Sector Virginia receives requests from
vessel operators that desire to go into a ``dead ship'' state and
depending on current and expected environmental conditions, the request
may be denied or an assist tug may be required to be on site during the
dead ship period in order to ensure compliance with that regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 33 CFR 164.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Whenever it is detected that a vessel's anchor is dragging, the
person in charge of the vessel shall immediately notify the COTP.'' Any
situation where a vessel drags anchor and is unable to make immediate
effective corrective action would be considered a hazardous condition,
which is required to be reported immediately to the Coast Guard.\52\
Also, see the discussion in Section III.G above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 33 CFR 160.216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Prohibiting anchorage of any vessel that has machinery or hull
damage that poses a threat to the safety of the port.'' A vessel
operator is already required to notify the Coast Guard immediately of
any marine casualty or hazardous condition. Existing COTP authority
gives the Coast Guard the authority to direct the movement of a vessel
in such circumstances, and existing anchorage regulations in Sec.
110.168(c)(3) cover this case.
    ``Be prepared to get underway as directed by the USCG COTP.'' This
is already generally addressed in Sec.  110.168(c)(9) of the Hampton
Roads Anchorage regulations.
    We do not agree with proposed provisions that would make any
requirement that a vessel must notify COTP for routine operations
because Coast Guard Sector Virginia does not currently have a Vessel
Traffic Service capability as found in some other parts of the country
where such routine tracking of vessels would take place through
mandatory vessel check-ins.
    We do not agree with a proposed provision to implement additional
ballast water discharge restrictions. The Coast Guard has established a
standard for allowable concentration of living organisms in ships'
ballast water discharged into waters of the United States, and we
believe this standard is sufficient.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 33 CFR 151, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. Requests To Extend the Comment Period

    Some comments requested an extended comment period. Given the
attention focused on this issue by our publication of the ANPRM and
public meetings on the ANRPM, the Coast Guard believes that the
opportunities provided by the NPRM comment period and accompanying
public meetings were sufficient for public comment.

R. Anchorage Proponents

    Seven comments supported a new, deep-water anchorage due to the
growing maritime infrastructure in the Hampton Roads area. With limited
availability of a deep draft anchorage in the existing naval
anchorages, we believe this rule enhances navigation safety and more
safely and effectively supports commercial vessel anchoring needs in
the lower Chesapeake Bay. Five comments were generally supportive of
the anchorage. One written comment suggested the anchorage would have a
positive impact on fisheries.

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a new Anchorage R and relocating
and increasing the size of the existing Quarantine Anchorage Q. This
reflects our consideration of all comments received on the NPRM and our
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration, which we developed
after issuing an ANPRM. This rule will more effectively establish a new
deep-water anchorage ground for commercial vessels to support the new
and projected growth in vessel traffic throughout the Hampton Roads
area. Anchorage R will be located in naturally deep water with charted
depths between 25 and 101 feet. Depths in the northern portions of the
anchorage range from 45 to 101 feet. Depths in the southern portion
range from 25 to 45 feet.
    The 7.9 NM long eastern boundary of Anchorage R is located
generally 3 NM west of Cape Charles, VA. The southernmost boundary is
3.9 NM long and runs parallel with and 500 yards north of the existing
Regulated Navigation Area.\54\ The western boundary of the anchorage
grounds runs parallel along, and no less than 500 yards east of York
Spit Channel for 13.9 NM, including an 11.2 NM length between Lighted
Buoys 24 and 38 and then continuing northeast for 2.7 NM beyond Lighted
Buoy 38. The anchorage is 0.6 NM long at its northern boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 33 CFR 165.501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard is moving the existing Quarantine Anchorage
(Anchorage Q), from the current location 3.5 NM to the west of Cape
Charles, VA, and east of York Spit Channel between Lighted Buoys 36 to
38, relocating it 6 NM southwest of Fishermans Point, VA. The new
location runs 625 yards west of York Spit Channel between buoys 16 and
18. The eastern boundary of Anchorage Q runs parallel to York Spit
Channel for 2.2 NM. The southernmost boundary is 1.3 NM from the
emergency restricted area outside the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. The
westernmost boundary is 2.2 NM. The northernmost boundary is 450 yards
southwest of York River Entrance Channel and runs for 1.3 NM. Its size
is increasing from approximately 1.1 to 1.7 square miles
    We made five changes to the regulatory text from that published in
the NPRM. The first two are rules specific to Anchorage R. We added
paragraphs (e)(10)(i) and (ii) in response to comments submitted to the
docket

and reiterated in public meetings addressing environmental
vulnerabilities unique to the characteristics of the Cape Charles area,
explained in the ``Discussion of Comments'' section above. They
restrict bulk transfers of oil and hazardous material and require non-
self-propelled vessels to be attended by towing vessels. The other
three changes to the regulatory text address that the coordinates for
anchorages (Q) and (R) are based on the World Geodetic System (WGS84).
In our introductory text of Sec.  110.168(a) ``Anchorages Grounds'' we
added ``Unless otherwise stated, . . .'' to the beginning of the
sentence. The sentence now reads ``Unless otherwise stated, all
coordinates in this section for anchorage grounds are based on North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).'' We added the following clarification
to both sentences of paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) ``. . ., which are based
on the World Geodetic System (WGS84) . . .'' Both sentences now read
``The waters bound by a line connecting the following points, which are
based on the World Geodetic System (WGS84):''
    The regulatory text, including the coordinates mention above,
appears at the end of this document. You may find an illustration of
the anchorage grounds in the ``Anchorage Boundary Development''
document in the docket.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and historical vessel traffic data pertaining to the
anchorage locations. The regulation would ensure approximately 18
square miles of new anchorage grounds are designated, applying existing
regulations for anchorages in the Hampton Roads area to vessels
anchoring between York Spit Channel and the town of Cape Charles, VA,
and would ensure approximately 1.7 square miles of anchorage grounds
are available for vessels that requires an examination by public
health, customs, or immigration authorities. This regulatory action
provides for needed commercial deep draft anchorage while enhancing the
navigational safety and environmental stewardship of large naval and
commercial vessels transiting the lower Chesapeake Bay.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to use the
anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator. The towns and communities along the west
coast of Eastern Shore of Virginia have an economy based on tourism and
numerous small entities and businesses. The addition of Anchorage R
will regulate and move vessels that are currently anchoring in the
general vicinity away from the shore and beaches, lessening impacts
these small entities may currently experience. Two comments were
received claiming significant impact to small entities, citing the
small business and municipalities in the Cape Charles area. The Coast
Guard disagrees that this regulation would have a negative effect
compared to the alternative that the no action would have to small
entities; vessels are already anchoring in this area.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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 will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this 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
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
amending the regulations for Hampton Roads and adjacent water
anchorages by establishing an anchorage, Anchorage R, approximately 3
NM west of Cape Charles, VA and increasing the size of and relocating
the existing Quarantine Anchorage, Anchorage Q, to a more secluded
position that is 6 NM southwest of Fishermans Point, VA. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L59(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  110.168:
0
a. Revise the section heading;
0
b. Add paragraph (a) introductory text;\
0
c. Revise paragraph (a)(6); and
0
d. Add paragraphs (a)(7) and (e)(10).
    The additions and revisions to read as follows.

Sec.  [thinsp]110.168  Hampton Roads, Virginia and adjacent waters.

    (a) Anchorage grounds. Unless otherwise stated, all coordinates in
this section for anchorage grounds are based on North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83).
* * * * *
    (6) Anchorage Q. Quarantine Anchorage. The waters bound by a line
connecting the following points, which are based on the World Geodetic
System (WGS84):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
37[deg]05'40'' N                     076[deg]08'12'' W
37[deg]05'40'' N                     076[deg]07'19'' W
37[deg]03'46'' N                     076[deg]05'58'' W
37[deg]03'46'' N                     076[deg]06'51'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Anchorage R. The waters bound by a line connecting the
following points, which are based on the World Geodetic System (WGS84):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
37[deg]19'10'' N                     076[deg]05'00'' W
37[deg]12'00'' N                     076[deg]05'00'' W
37[deg]09'08'' N                     076[deg]08'19'' W
37[deg]11'23'' N                     076[deg]08'49'' W
37[deg]19'10'' N                     076[deg]05'46'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (10) Anchorage R. (i) No vessel using Anchorage R may conduct oil
or hazardous material transfer operations subject to 33 CFR part 156
except with permission of the COTP.
    (ii) Any non-self-propelled vessel using Anchorage R must have a
towing vessel in attendance except with permission of the COTP not to
have a towing vessel in attendance.

    Dated: May 6, 2020.
Keith M. Smith,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020-10100 Filed 5-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4686-4688]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1124]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014; FRL-8861-4]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations,
voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of
the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to section 6(f)(1)
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as
amended. This cancellation order follows a June 16, 2010 Federal
Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in
Table 2 of Unit II. to voluntarily cancel these product registrations.
In the June 16, 2010 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order
implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive
comments within the 180-day comment period that would merit its further
review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their
requests. The Agency did not receive any comments on the notice.
Further, the Agency received notice from Waterbury Companies, Inc. to
withdraw its cancellation request for product 9444-170. Accordingly,
EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the
requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of the products
subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with
the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

DATES: The cancellations are effective January 26, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maia Tatinclaux, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by
registrants, of 54 products registered under FIFRA section 3 or section
24(c). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration
number in Table 1 of this unit.

                     Table 1--Product Cancellations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Active
       Registration No.              Product name         ingredients
------------------------------------------------------------------------
000004-00059..................  Bonide Rose & Flower   Malathion
                                 Dust.                  Carbaryl Captan.
000228-00629..................  SFM E-PRO 75 EG        Sulfometuron.
                                 Herbicide.
000228-00683..................  ET-002...............  Sulfometuron.
000279-03392..................  CB-38-3 WB...........  Piperonyl
                                                        Butoxide
                                                        Pyrethrins.
000432-00800..................  Esbiol 90%             S-Bioallethrin.
                                 Concentrate.
000432-00801..................  Esbiothrin 90%         Esbiothrin.
                                 Concentrate.
000432-00802..................  Bioallethrin 90%       Bioallethrin.
                                 Concentrate.
000432-00841..................  DS 215 Professional    S-Bioallethrin
                                 Insecticide.           Deltamethrin.
000432-00848..................  DS 210 Professional    S-Bioallethrin
                                 Insecticide.           Deltamethrin.
000432-0870...................  Esbiol 300             S-Bioallethrin.
                                 Insecticide.
000432-0871...................  Esbiol 2000            S-Bioallethrin.
                                 Insecticide.
000498-0149...................  Chase-MM Flying and    Bioallethrin MGK
                                 Crawling Insect        264 Permethrin.
                                 Killer.
000498-00170..................  Spraypak Wasp &        d-Allethrin
                                 Hornet Killer,         Phenothrin.
                                 Formula 2.
000769-00594..................  R&M Permethrin Flea &  MGK 264
                                 Tick Dip 2.   Permethrin.
000769--0965..................  Sureco Permethrin      Permethrin.
                                 Powder.
002517-00022..................  Double Duty Bird       Paradichlorobenze
                                 Guard.                 ne.
002517-00049..................  Sergeant's Pump Soap   Bioallethrin MGK
                                 for Dogs.              264 Phenothrin.
002517-00059..................  Sergeant's Skip-Flea   MGK 264
                                 Soap (with D-          Phenothrin.
                                 Phenothrin).
002517-00067..................  Sergeant's Flea and    MGK 264
                                 Tick Dip.              Permethrin.
002517-00074..................  Sergeant's Flea &      MGK 264
                                 Tick Spray.            Permethrin.

002724-00698..................  Tetraperm Wasp &       Piperonyl
                                 Hornet Killer FEQ 23   Butoxide
                                 II.                    Tetramethrin
                                                        Permethrin.
004822-00271..................  271 Raid      Tetramethrin
                                 Roach & Ant Killer     Permethrin.
                                 and Treatment.
004822-00423..................  Raid Wasp & Hornet     Tetramethrin
                                 Killer XIII.           Permethrin.
004822-00456..................  Raid Pip 1...........  Permethrin.
004822-00462..................  Whitmire Flea & Tick   MGK 264
                                 Dip.                   Permethrin.
004822-00470..................  Raid PP..............  Permethrin.
004822-00488..................  Raid--CK.............  MGK 264
                                                        Permethrin
                                                        Pyriproxyfen.
004822-00514..................  Raid F1K Formula H2A.  Tetramethrin
                                                        Permethrin.
004822-00533..................  Raid Reach & Kill      Tetramethrin
                                 Outdoor Ant & Roach    Permethrin.
                                 Killer.
008112-00001..................  Lion-Tiger Mosquito    d-Allethrin.
                                 Coils.
009688-00053..................  Chemisco Flea Control  Bioallethrin MGK
                                 A.                     264 Phenothrin.
010088-00021..................  ESPC Emulsifiable      MGK 264 Piperonyl
                                 Synergized Pyrethrum   Butoxide
                                 Concentrate.           Pyrethrins.
010807-00003..................  Misty Blaster Insect   MGK 264 Piperonyl
                                 Spray.                 Butoxide
                                                        Pyrethrins.
010807-00027..................  Misty Mizer            MGK 264 Piperonyl
                                 Insecticide.           Butoxide
                                                        Pyrethrins.
010807-00044..................  Misty Mizer Economy    MGK 264 Piperonyl
                                 Insecticide.           Butoxide
                                                        Pyrethrins.
010807-00096..................  Misty Space Spray      MGK 264 Piperonyl
                                 Insecticide.           Butoxide
                                                        Pyrethrins.
010807-00188..................  Misty Industrial       Piperonyl
                                 Insect Killer.         Butoxide
                                                        Pyrethrins
                                                        Permethrin.
010807-00197..................  Misty Anti-Crawl III.  Piperonyl
                                                        Butoxide
                                                        Tetramethrin
                                                        Permethrin.
010807-00198..................  Misty Wasp & Hornet    Piperonyl
                                 Killer IV.             Butoxide
                                                        Tetramethrin
                                                        Permethrin.
013799-00024..................  Four Paws Magic Coat   Bioallethrin MGK
                                 Plus II.               264 Phenothrin.
033176-00021..................  Airysol Brand Insect   Bioallethrin MGK
                                 Killer.                264 Piperonyl
                                                        Butoxide.
040849-00016..................  Enforcer Flea & Tick   MGK 264 Piperonyl
                                 Powder for Pets.       Butoxide
                                                        Pyrethrins.
058630-00003..................  Varpel Rope..........  Paradichlorobenze
                                                        ne.
061483-00068..................  Permectrin 25%         Permethrin.
                                 Wettable Powder.
062355-00001..................  Concern Houseplant     Piperonyl
                                 and Garden Insect      Butoxide
                                 Killer.                Pyrethrins.
064537-00001..................  Cocksec Mosquito Coil  d-Allethrin.
075101-00002..................  Tanalith[reg]T.......  Permethrin.
075101-00003..................  Tanalith[reg]T Plus..  IPBC Permethrin.
080203-00001..................  Go Away..............  Permethrin.
084396-00028..................  Sungro Pyreth 3.                   Butoxide
                                                        Pyrethrins.
CA880005......................  Dormant Flowable       Mineral Oil--
                                 Emulsion.              includes
                                                        paraffin oil.
CA960011......................  Mefenoxam EC.........  D-Alanine,N-(2,6-
                                                        dimethylphenyl)-
                                                        N-
                                                        (methoxyacetyl)-
                                                        methyl ester.
MN940003......................  Malathion 5 EC.......  Malathion.
OR040002......................  Caparol 4L...........  Prometryn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the
EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this
unit.

               Table 2--Registrants of Cancelled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA Co. No.                    Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4......................................  Bonide Products, Inc., Agent
                                          Registrations By Design, Inc.,
                                          P.O. Box 1019, Salem, VA 24153-
                                          3805.
228....................................  Nufarm Americas Inc., 150
                                          Harvester Dr, Suite 200, Burr
                                          Ridge, IL 60527.
279....................................  FMC Corp. Agricultural Products
                                          Group, 1735 Market St, Rm.
                                          1978, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
432....................................  Bayer Environmental Science, 2
                                          T. W. Alexander Drive, P.O.
                                          Box 12014, Research Triangle
                                          Park, NC 27709.
498....................................  Chase Products Co., P.O. Box
                                          70, Maywood, IL 60153.
769....................................  Value Gardens Supply, LLC, P.O.
                                          Box 585, Saint Joseph, MO
                                          64502.
2517...................................  Sergeant's Pet Care Products,
                                          Inc., 2625 South 158th Plaza,
                                          Omaha, NE 68130-1703.
2724...................................  Wellmark International, 1501 E.
                                          Woodfield Rd, Suite 200 West,
                                          Schaumburg, IL 60173.
4822...................................  S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 1525
                                          Howe St., Racine, WI 53403.
8112...................................  Lion Chemical Co., Ltd., 1330
                                          Dillon Heights Ave.,
                                          Baltimore, MD 21228.
9688...................................  Chemsico, Div of United
                                          Industries Corp., P.O. Box
                                          142642, St. Louis, MO 63114-
                                          0642.
10088..................................  Athea Laboratories Inc., P.O.
                                          Box 240014, Milwaukee, WI
                                          53224.
10807..................................  Amrep, Inc., 990 Industrial
                                          Park Drive, Marietta, GA
                                          30062.
13799..................................  Four Paws Products LTD, 50
                                          Wireless Boulevard, Hauppauge,
                                          NY 11788.
33176..................................  Amrep, Inc., 990 Industrial
                                          Park Drive, Marietta, GA
                                          30062.
40849..................................  ZEP Inc., 1310 Seaboard
                                          Industrial Blvd. NW, Atlanta,
                                          GA 30318.

58630..................................  Woodstream Corporation, 69
                                          North Locust St., P.O. Box
                                          327, Lititz, PA 17543-0327.
61483..................................  KMG-Bernuth, Inc., 9555 W. Sam
                                          Houston Pkwy South, Suite 600,
                                          Houston, TX 77099.
62355..................................  Miracle-Gro Lawn Products Inc.,
                                          14111 Scottslawn Rd,
                                          Marysville, OH 43041.
64537..................................  Dainihon Jochugiku Co., Ltd,
                                          1330 Dillon Heights Ave.,
                                          Baltimore, MD 21228.
75101..................................  Arch Wood Protection Limited,
                                          5660 New Northside Drive, Ste
                                          1100, Atlanta, GA 30328.
80203..................................  Starensier, Inc., 10 Mulliken
                                          Way, P.O. Box 408,
                                          Newburyport, MA 01950-0508.
84396..................................  Sungro Products, LLC, 810 E.
                                          18th St., Los Angeles, CA
                                          90021.
CA960011; OR040002.....................  Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.,
                                          P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC
                                          27419-8300.
CA880005...............................  Loveland Products, Inc., P.O.
                                          Box 1286, Greeley, CO 80632-
                                          1286.
MN940003...............................  Arysta Lifescience North
                                          America, LLC, 155401 Weston
                                          Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC
                                          27513.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments
in response to the June 16, 2010 Federal Register notice announcing the
Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellations of
products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

 IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested
cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II.
Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations
identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of
the cancellations that are subject of this notice is January 26, 2011.
Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products
identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of
the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI.
will be a violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve
such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for
comment in the Federal Register issue of June 16, 2010 (75 FR 34117)
(FRL-8827-1). The comment period closed on December 13, 2010.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products
subject to this order are as follows.
    The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks
of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until January 26, 2012, which
is 1 year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the
Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from
selling or distributing products listed in Table 1, except for export
in accordance with FIFRA section 17, or proper disposal. Persons other
than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of
products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until existing stocks are
exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent
with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that
accompanied, the canceled products.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: January 11, 2011.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-1124 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 47495]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on a Land Release Request at Malden
Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW), Malden, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release of airport land.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
request to release and sell a 4.81 acre parcel and a .016 acre parcel
of federally obligated airport property at the Malden Regional Airport
& Industrial Park (MAW), Malden, Missouri, under the provisions agency
regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106. In addition, one
copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered
to: David Blalock, Airport Manager, City of Malden Regional Airport &
Industrial Park, 3077 Mitchell Drive, P.O. Box 411, Malden, MO 63863-
0411,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. The request to release property may be reviewed, by
appointment, in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release a 4.81 acre parcel and a 0.16 acre parcel of airport
property at the Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) under
the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). This is a Surplus Property
Airport. The City of Malden requested a release from the FAA to sell a
4.81 acre parcel to Aycorp, LLC for residential development, and a 0.16
acre parcel to Jerry Smith for future development. The FAA determined
this request to release and sell property at the Malden Regional
Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) submitted by the Sponsor meets the
procedural requirements of the FAA and the release and sale of the
property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the
airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no
sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) is proposing
the release and sale of a 4.81 acre parcel and a 0.16 acre parcel of
airport property. The release of land is necessary to comply with
Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow
federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation
purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at
the Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) being changed from
aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the
conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant
Assurances in order to sell the land. In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value
for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in another
eligible airport improvement project for general aviation use.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may request an appointment to inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Malden City Hall.
    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on July 28, 2022.

James A. Johnson,
Director, FAA Central Region, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-16540 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P