[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21129-21137]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2009-0139]
RIN 1625-A11

Regulated Navigation Area; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Inner
Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule revises an existing interim rule to
permanently establish a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) protecting
floodwalls and levees in the New Orleans area from possible damage
caused by vessels that can breakaway during certain tropical storm and
hurricane conditions. This final rule also addresses comments from the
public on the previously published Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) and economic review for this RNA. This action is
necessary for the flood protection of high-risk areas throughout the
Greater New Orleans Area when a tropical event threatens to approach
and impact the area.

DATES: This rule is effective April 15, 2014. This rule has been
enforced with actual notice since April 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2009-0139]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Brandon Sullivan, Sector New Orleans Waterways
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CPRA Coastal Protection Restoration Authority
HSDRRS Hurricane Storm Damage Risk Reduction System
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
COTP Captain of the Port
IHNC Inner Harbor Navigation Canal
GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
MM Mile Marker
RNA Regulated Navigational Area

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without a full 30-day
notice pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This final
rule makes permanent the RNA specific to safety measures during
hurricane season which is June 1 through November 30 each year. The
existing interim rule for this RNA has been effective for approximately
four years and requires necessary changes, based on the completed flood
protection system, through this final rule for the approaching 2014
hurricane season. This final rule also allows for possible planned
deviation from the RNA through a Hurricane Operations Plan submitted at
least one month before the season begins, which is May 1, 2014 for this
year. Throughout the rulemaking process for this RNA, those regulated
by the rule, specifically industry and waterway users, have
participated in this rulemaking through public meetings and the public
comment process and are fully aware that this RNA will be in place for
the 2014 hurricane season. It is unnecessary to further delay the
updated RNA by waiting for a full 30 days notice to take place through
publication in the Federal Register.
    On June 8, 2010, the Coast Guard published an interim rule entitled
``Regulated Navigation Area; Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway, Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA''
in the FR (75 FR 32275) and provided responses to all comments to the
original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which published May 14,
2009 in the Federal Register (74 FR 22722). That interim rule is
codified and the RNA is currently enforced under 33 CFR 165.838. The
intent behind establishing the RNA through an interim rulemaking was to
put into place interim restrictions providing the necessary protections
at the time and until the final floodwalls and storm protection system
were completed and final specifications established and received. The
interim rule stated that the Coast Guard would reevaluate the RNA upon
completion of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS). With the
HSDRRS being fully operational for the 2013 hurricane season, the Coast
Guard, with input from Federal, State and local agencies determined
that the RNA is still necessary.
    On June 7, 2013, the Coast Guard published a SNPRM entitled
``Regulated Navigation Area; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal, Harvey Canal, Algiers Canal, New Orleans, LA'' in the
Federal Register (78 FR 34293). In the SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposed
changes to the requirements of the RNA from those in the interim rule.
In developing these requirements, the Coast Guard established a work
group comprised of Federal, State and local flood protection
authorities, and port and industry representatives. Through this work
group, public meetings were held and input from the meetings helped to
address the protections still necessary and modify the restrictions in
the interim rule to provide those protections. The minutes from those
meetings are available for public viewing on the docket. In addition to
the work-group meetings, the Coast Guard considered lessons learned
from implementing the RNA provisions of the interim rule during
Hurricane Isaac in 2012. Also, while drafting the SNPRM, the Coast
Guard met formally with the USACE six times to (1) determine the risks
presented by vessels to the HSDRRS, (2) understand the conditions under
which such risks occur, and (3) to ensure that a final RNA aligns with
USACE operations and concerns.
    The Coast Guard also held a public meeting on June 20, 2013 at 5
p.m. local time, to receive comments on the SNPRM. Comments received at
the public meeting were supportive of the overall collaborative
planning process, and did not contain any specific content requiring a
Coast Guard response in this Final Rule. A transcript of that public
meeting was uploaded to the public docket. During the SNPRM comment
period, the Coast Guard also received 18 written comments from seven
entities on the proposed changes within the public docket, which are
addressed in this final rule below. These comments did not result in
any substantial changes to the requirements of the RNA in this final
rule.
    In January 2013, the Coast Guard also requested information on a
voluntary basis from 10 local industry and waterway users operating
within the RNA. This information was requested in the form a
questionnaire available in the public docket accessed as directed under
ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard worked with an assigned Coast Guard
economist to develop the questionnaire, which was used to gather
information on the possible economic impacts--both cost and benefit--
that the proposed changes may impose. These questions included but were
not limited to assessing the economic impact of requiring mooring
arrangements similar to those required under 33 CFR 165.803; developing
and submitting mooring arrangements as an alternate to those listed
under 33 CFR 165.803; evacuating all vessels out of the RNA during
enforcement periods; requiring weekly inspections, continuous
surveillance, and certain equipment if a facility wishes to keep
vessels within the RNA during enforcement; and requiring an annual
Hurricane Operations Plan from facilities desiring to keep vessels
within certain areas of the RNA as a preplanned deviation from the RNA
restriction. The existing RNA, the proposed changes to the RNA in the
SNPRM, and this final rule restrict all vessels from entering or
remaining in any part of the designated RNA during enforcement. The
existing RNA, the RNA as proposed in the SNPRM and this final rule also
provide an avenue for vessels and facilities to pre-plan a deviation
from RNA enforcement. Comments received at public meetings and during
comment periods throughout the rulemaking process for this RNA support
the opportunity to deviate if a facility and/or vessel show that they
can do so safely and securely. The current RNA affords vessels and
facilities the opportunity to deviate from the restriction through
applying for an annual waiver and the option to deviate is provided for
in this final rule through submitting an Annual Hurricane Operations
Plan. This plan replaces the current waiver requirement.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of this final rule is to permanently establish the RNA
to protect floodwalls and levees in the New Orleans area from possible
storm damage caused by moored barges and vessels, and to prevent
flooding in the New Orleans area that could result from that storm
damage.
    This final rule permanently establishes the RNA now that the flood
protection system is complete. This final rule responds to the risks at
hand using knowledge and expertise and addressing the needs uncovered
throughout this rulemaking process including the NPRM, the interim
rule, the SNPRM, and input and participation from federal, state, and
local agencies as well as public and industry stakeholders. Without
this RNA, when navigational structures within the HSDRRS are to be
closed because of an approaching storm, the Coast Guard would have to
individually order each vessel within the subject area to depart or to
comply with specific mooring arrangements. Issuing individual orders
places a significant administrative burden on the Coast Guard during a
time when important pre-storm preparations must also be made. By
creating this rule, the Coast Guard is informing the public in advance
of the restrictions and requirements for vessels in the area during
periods of enforcement, enabling vessel and facility operators to make
seasonal plans and arrangements for RNA evacuation and thus eliminating
the need for individual Captain of the Port (COTP) Orders.
    An additional purpose of this RNA is to aid the Coast Guard in the
early identification of vessels that may not depart the RNA when
required. Under PWSA, the Coast Guard has no authority to take
possession of, and move these vessels during emergency periods such as
the approach of a hurricane. Rather, Coast Guard enforcement is limited
to imposing civil or criminal penalties on anyone who fails to comply
with the requirements of an order or regulation issued under PWSA.
Therefore early identification of vessels that may be unwilling to
depart the area, or are unable to remain safely moored within the area
during a storm, is extremely

important and will provide the Coast Guard time to consider
alternatives and work with interagency authorities and vessel and
facility representatives to appropriately resolve the problem well in
advance of a storm.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    Seven individuals or companies submitted a total of 18 comments to
the SNPRM. The Coast Guard's response to these comments are discussed
in detail below, however, the Coast Guard has not made any substantial
changes from the requirements proposed in the SNPRM as a result of
these comments.
    One comment expressed concern that proposed mooring criteria are
more stringent than the criteria in the interim rule, which would
require additional professional engineering certification resulting in
additional costs for compliance for this particular entity. The interim
rule published in 2010 stated that the Coast Guard would reevaluate the
need for the Regulated Navigation Area and make changes and proposals
in a final rule as appropriate. In developing the mooring criteria
proposed in the SNPRM and implemented by this final rule, the Coast
Guard worked with the USACE to determine acceptable standards and
parameters that reduce risk within the canal basins. In February 2013,
the USACE provided engineering analysis based on the design and
construction of the newly completed HSDRRS which determined that
mooring criteria needed to meet more stringent requirements for
potential surge height, wind speeds, etc. In February 2013, the USACE
provided correspondence to the Coast Guard recommending that we
incorporate aspects of the standard mooring criteria found in United
Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-159 and the American Society of the Civil
Engineers (ASCE) 7 that could be utilized by professional engineers in
designing and approving the mooring standards. Therefore, the Coast
Guard proposed a standard consistent with the maximum potential water
levels USACE has determined could occur with sustained heavy rainfall
over a 24 hour timeframe within the HSDRRS system. In this
correspondence, the USACE recommended that the Coast Guard utilize
design wind loads based on ASCE 7. The two design values mentioned are
88 mph and 140 mph. To decrease risk of a vessel breaking away from its
mooring, the Coast Guard incorporated the more stringent 140 mph wind
requirement, which represents a three-second maximum gust velocity in
the New Orleans area as outlined by the USACE. We understand that since
2009 facilities who wished to keep vessels in the RNA during storms had
to submit multiple engineering analyses which resulted in financial
expenditures for each entity. Final determination on criteria required
was simply not available at the time the interim rule was established.
This final rule and the criteria included were developed over four
years of partnerships between all entities involved to lessen the
burden of multiple engineering analyses.
    One comment requested that the Coast Guard differentiate
restrictions and requirements based upon vessel tonnage, measured or
dead weight or construction. The Coast Guard does not possess data, and
is not aware of a data source, clearly delineating risk in relation to
size of vessels. The USACE determined that without an analysis
determining the resiliency of the I-walls, no vessels, tanks, yachts,
boats, campers, buildings or other structures should be allowed to
impact the floodwalls. Without this clear delineation, the Coast Guard
will require all floating vessels intending to remain in the RNA during
a storm event to submit Annual Hurricane Operation Plans and meet the
requirements outlined within this final rule to reduce risk within the
canal basins. The Coast Guard is very aware of the risk in this area
and has closely coordinated with multiple agencies regarding that risk.
In the absence of further analysis or other non-Coast Guard actions to
mitigate risks such as reinforcing floodwalls and levees or installing
barriers protecting them, the Coast Guard is compelled to take a
conservative approach. Furthermore, as outlined in correspondence to
the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East dated August
20th, 2012, the USACE plans to analyze the resiliency of the I-walls
subject to impact loads from small vessels, small floating objects,
characteristics of boat impacts, limiting velocities and boat weight to
further classify which vessels actually constitute a risk. Should this
occur, the Coast Guard may review or update this regulation to
potentially exempt certain classes of vessels from these regulatory
requirements. In the absence of such policy, direction or analysis, the
Coast Guard has decided to make this regulation applicable to all
vessels in the RNA, regardless of size, to provide the maximum
protection possible to the flood protection structures in the area.
    One comment requested the Coast Guard reevaluate the surge height
requirement for engineering certification to the lowest height of the
levee walls within the canal basins as well as consider wind directions
that could affect water rise. The Coast Guard has done this for surge
heights; the height in the SNPRM reflects the lowest height of a levee
or floodwall in each canal basin. Based on USACE analysis these heights
may be reached by maximum potential rainfall amounts that could occur
within a 24-hour period. The Coast Guard did not factor potential wind
directions for surge height requirements because decisions to enforce
and implement the provisions found in this final rule would need to
occur much sooner than actual known wind directions which are subject
to changing forecasts, intensities or error in track models.
    One comment described a financial hardship for small craft moorings
to meet mooring requirements for winds of 140 mph and requests vessels
be allowed to utilize temporary lines in meeting the 140 mph
requirements. This final rule implements the transition from a waiver-
based system to a performance-based system proposed in the SNPRM. It
also allows the facility owners to work with professional engineers on
a plan that meets the performance requirements, either with permanent
fixed mooring systems, mooring lines or a combination of both.
    One comment requested the Coast Guard allow the standby tugboat
requirement for individual facilities to be satisfied by sharing tug(s)
across facilities within established geographic limits. The ability for
facilities to allow vessels to stay during RNA enforcement under this
final rule is grounded in the requirement that each facility owner be
responsible for all vessels contained within their annual hurricane
operations plan. The Coast Guard will be reviewing these annual
hurricane operations plans and ensuring that each individual entity
meets the requirements in this final rule to reduce risk of a breakaway
at a facility. Expanding a tug's standby area across multiple
businesses and a wider geographic area increases the risk of a vessel
breakaway. In the event of multiple breakaways at different facilities,
the likelihood that a breakaway would not be responded to given
challenges in prioritizing a tug's response across businesses is
certainly increased. The Coast Guard intends for each facility owner to
be prepared with the required on-scene tugs should a scenario occur
where multiple facilities need their tug assistance and where a sharing
of resources may not be practicable. Once again the Coast Guard is only
specifying these requirements for facilities with floating vessels
choosing to deviate from the RNA and intending to remain within the RNA
geographic

area during a tropical event. Should the facility not want to incur the
additional cost, they may remove the vessel.
    One comment requested the Coast Guard include in the regulation
that the Port Coordination Team would be consulted prior to mandatory
evacuations in the event a particularly dangerous storm is predicted.
The Coast Guard agrees and has included this in the regulation at 33
CFR 165.838 (c) (4).
    One comment expressed concerns that mooring arrangement design
criteria were significantly increased from the SNPRM, are too
stringent, and may not reflect realistic storm conditions which may
occur within the canal basins. The commenter requested further
discussion on the reasoning for these new requirements. In drafting
this Final Rule, the Coast Guard worked with the USACE and maritime
stakeholders to determine acceptable standards and parameters that
reduced risk within the canal basins. The criteria in this rule was
provided by the USACE based on engineering of the completed HSDRRS and
their analysis of conditions (surge heights and wind speeds) that could
occur within the canals in the RNA during a storm, even with navigation
structures closed as outlined in correspondence to the Coast Guard from
the USACE on February 7th, 2013. The USACE proposed that the standards
found in UFC 4-159 and ASCE 7 were sufficient to meet the criteria. The
Coast Guard relied upon the engineering expertise of the USACE to
reduce risk during dangerous storms. Absent new information disputing
these recommendations the Coast Guard feels it necessary to move
forward with these requirements. However, the Coast Guard will accept
new information that may be beneficial for future updates for this RNA.
    One comment requested this final rule expand the RNA to include:
(a) the ``Golden Triangle-area'' on the protected side (West) of the
Lake Borgne Barrier, bound by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW),
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) and the IHNC Lake Borgne Surge
Barrier; (b) a half mile buffer on the East Side of the IHNC Lake
Borgne Surge Barrier parallel to the entire structure; (c) the area
along the de-authorized MRGO channel adjacent to the St. Bernard
Floodwalls extending a half mile past the southernmost portion of the
wall; and (d) the Hero Canal outside of the HSDRRS. The Coast Guard
does not intend to extend the RNA geographic parameters outside of what
was proposed in the supplemental rule at this time.
    The ``Golden Triangle'', MRGO, and half mile area around the IHNC
Lake Borgne Surge Barrier are not areas where vessels typically operate
or moor in inclement weather. Should the USACE identify vessels that
pose a significant risk during a tropical event in this area, the Coast
Guard will issue individual COTP orders directing them to relocate
outside these areas adjacent to the RNA. In regards to Hero Canal,
which is outside of the West Closure Complex and adjacent to an earthen
levee system, the Coast Guard does not intend to include this in the
RNA without further analysis provided by levee design and construction
entities demonstrating a potential risk from vessels in the canal. Hero
Canal is not a waterway with commercial facilities and moorings in
areas subject to storm surge during hurricanes. Hero Canal has
traditionally been an area where smaller fishing vessels sought safe
refuge during dangerous storms before the HSDRRS was completed. During
Hurricane Isaac, fishing vessels sought safe refuge within the HSDRRS.
Lessons learned from those seeking safe refuge during Hurricane Isaac
resulted in the Coast Guard, USACE, Southeast Louisiana Flood
Protection Authority West, other state and local agencies and the
fishing community discussing allowing these vessels to stage within
this canal for tropical events instead of within the RNA in the
protected side of the West Closure Complex. Of note, expanding RNA
Geographic areas from what was proposed within the SNPRM would require
additional public comment. The Coast Guard feels it necessary to
publish this final rule without further change or comment, providing
those affected sufficient time to comply with RNA requirements before
the 2014 Hurricane Season. However, the Coast Guard will entertain
future proposed changes to this final rule should further analysis be
provided to support a future update rule.
    One comment requested the Coast Guard clearly define particularly
dangerous storm and consider complete evacuation of all vessels. This
Final Rule already contains wording that allows the COTP the
flexibility to require all vessels to vacate the RNA should a
particularly dangerous storm be predicted to impact the RNA area. The
Coast Guard believes that flexibility is necessary in determining what
storm forecasts may warrant a complete RNA evacuation. Storm track and
strength forecasts are uncertain and scenarios which impact the RNA are
wide ranging, making specific scenario description impractical in
regulation. However, as previously mentioned, the Coast Guard accepts
that this decision should be made in consultation with the Port
Coordination Team and has included this in the regulation.
    One comment requested that the Coast Guard require all vessels with
Hurricane Operation Plans be required to maintain a constant state of
compliance with this rulemaking throughout the calendar year. The Coast
Guard will ensure that all facilities allowing vessels to remain in the
RNA during a tropical event submit an Annual Hurricane Operations Plan
but will not enforce the implementation of that plan until necessary
for a particular weather event. The Coast Guard and USACE will be
conducing monthly patrols during hurricane season to ensure those with
Hurricane Operation Plans are prepared and able to implement those
plans for pending tropical events. It is during these monthly patrols
that verification checks will be made to ensure facilities are
compliant with their certified plan. Requiring facilities to moor
vessels in accordance with mooring plans for inclement weather simply
isn't justified until the COTP announces the enforcement of the RNA.
Other facility owners who intend to vacate the RNA upon activation are
not required to comply with the RNA mooring requirements. If a facility
with a valid Hurricane Operations Plan is not compliant with their
certified plan, the vessels moored there will be required to vacate the
RNA also.
    One comment requested the Coast Guard consider removing all vessels
from the IHNC corridor and revise the current language which states the
``Coast Guard is not inclined to allow any floating vessels to remain
within the IHNC portion of the Canal Basin''. The Coast Guard considers
that the current wording is adequate to address the risk in that area.
The Coast Guard has no intentions to support any additional annual
Hurricane Operation Plan submissions for floating vessels within higher
risk IHNC areas. Performance based criteria will not apply to the IHNC
area, and any vessels who expect to remain will need to apply for a
deviation and demonstrate that mooring arrangements provide an
equivalent level of safety. As was previously mentioned, the USACE has
stated an analysis would be produced to determine the resiliency of the
I-walls subject to impact loads from small vessels, small floating
objects, characteristics of boat impacts, limiting velocities and boat
weight to further classify which vessels actually constitute a risk.
Once that analysis is produced and clearly identified, the Coast Guard
would be willing to review

or update this Final Rule, which may allow certain classes of vessels
to remain within the IHNC. In the absence of such policy, direction or
analysis, the Coast Guard intends to maintain current posture and
wording as outlined within this Final Rule.
    One comment notified the Coast Guard that revised mooring criteria
were being developed which may slightly differ from what the Coast
Guard was proposing. The commenter requested that these newly revised
criteria be included in this final rule. After a two year process of
crafting this rule with multiple Federal, State and local entities, the
Coast Guard is moving forward with publishing this final rule with
current information. The Coast Guard however is open to future
recommendations on mooring guidance and, if appropriate, would
reexamine these standards in a future rulemaking. The Coast Guard is
publishing this rule to enable vessels, facility owners and operators
sufficient time to comply with requirements in time for the 2014
Hurricane Season.
    One comment requested that mooring criteria identified within this
final rule be considered a minimum requirement and further stated that
additional mooring criteria utilizing UFC 4-159 would be provided to
the Coast Guard for inclusion in this rule. The commenter suggested
apparatus design plans that accompany a waiver application should be
reviewed by the USACE and approved or denied by the USCG. The Coast
Guard has stated in this final rule that the intent of this rulemaking
is transitioning from a waiver approval process to a performance based
system. The Coast Guard agrees with the commenter and will partner with
the USACE in the annual review and submission of all Hurricane
Operational Plans. The Coast Guard agrees that requirements described
in this rulemaking are minimum requirements that should be attained by
all vessel and facility operators, and that mooring designs need to be
certified by a professional engineer. As previously stated, after a two
year process of crafting this rule with multiple Federal, State and
local entities, the Coast Guard is moving forward with publishing this
final rule with current information to ensure vessels, facility owners,
and operators have sufficient time to comply with requirements for the
2014 Hurricane Season.
    One comment stated that the actual size and type of lashing shall
be designed by the owner's professional engineer and shall be included
in the required annual hurricane operations plan and be consistent with
UFC 4-159. The Coast Guard believes this comment is already addressed
within this regulation and specifically within the requirements for a
professional engineer to certify minimum attainment of the mooring
design criteria.
    Two related comments requested clarification on the regulatory text
relating to allowable actions within the RNA during the enforcement
period and how that relates to the closing of the navigational
structures. For further clarification, the Coast Guard intends to begin
enforcement of the RNA 24 hours in advance of the anticipated closure
of either the IHNC Lake Borgne Surge Barrier or the West Closure
Complex. When the Coast Guard announces that the RNA will be
implemented, all vessels not having an approved plan to remain in the
RNA need to begin vacating the RNA, and need to be out of the RNA area
prior to the closure of the structures or locks. All vessels that are
transiting through the RNA will be allowed to transit providing there
is sufficient time to either vacate or reach their intended and
approved location. Progress and status of RNA evacuation will be
monitored by Port Assessment Teams comprising representatives of the
USCG, USACE and the levee protection authorities.
    Finally, one comment asked whether the Coast Guard had sufficient
resources to perform compliance inspections needed to ensure all
vessels remaining in the RNA are properly moored to an approved mooring
facility. Yes, the Coast Guard has sufficient resources, utilizing Port
Assessment Teams that patrol the RNA area during hurricane season to
maintain maritime domain awareness in the canals, counting vessels, and
analyzing how long it would take for vessels to vacate the RNA area
should a tropical event occur. Additionally, during a possible tropical
event, the Coast Guard, USACE and levee protection authorities patrol
daily to ensure facilities that have submitted annual hurricane
operation plans are complying with those plans and address any concerns
identified during those patrols. The success of these patrols and the
joint effort between our port partners to enact the RNA was
demonstrated during Hurricane Isaac and Tropical Storm Karen where the
RNA was successfully implemented with current resource levels.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    In determining if this rule was a significant regulatory action,
the Coast Guard considered alternatives so as not to unduly impact the
segment of the economy impacted by the RNA. Furthermore, the Coast
Guard also incorporated mooring requirements in regulation that negates
the need for annual waivers greatly reducing associated costs. The
Coast Guard incorporated into the regulatory requirements a provision
that enables plans to be submitted with alternative minimum mooring
requirements which will be reviewed by the COTP on a case-by-case
basis. This provision enables the Coast Guard to review and allow
mooring alternatives such as piling systems that permanently moor a
vessel not intending to move from its berth that present an equal or
greater level of safety under the regulation in an effort to mitigate
possible regulatory and economic impacts. The Coast Guard also provided
a series of questions for industry comment with the sole purpose of
determining regulatory and economic impact. The questions were provided
to those entities that had submitted waivers to remain in the RNA under
the Interim Rule, along with the responses received, are available for
public viewing in the docket.
    Based on responses to the questions, the Coast Guard modified the
proposed tug boat requirements for on-scene monitoring of vessels
during RNA enforcement. The Coast Guard originally contemplated
requiring each facility with three or more vessels to have one tug on-
scene for every 25 vessels. As a result of the Coast Guard's outreach
to industry with these questions and subsequent responses indicating an
unnecessary economic hardship, the Coast Guard modified this
requirement. The SNPRM proposed every facility with eight or more
vessels to maintain one tug for every 50 vessels which significantly
reduces the economic impact on industry but still provides a
substantial measure of safety in the

event that tugs are required in an emergency.
2. Impact on Small Entities
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or moor in the RNA during enforcement, and the
owners or operators or facilities in the RNA who intend to keep vessels
at their facility during enforcement of the RNA. On a case by case
basis, the Coast Guard will continue to review alternatives to the
minimum mooring requirements for those that have an equal or greater
measure of safety. This provision supports the Coast Guard's ongoing
effort to keep this rulemaking from having a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Also, this regulation
seeks to reduce impact on small entities by transitioning to a
performance based system allowing vessels to remain if they meet the
mooring requirements in the regulation. In addition, several routes for
vessel traffic exist for departure from the area before the RNA goes
into effect.
3. Assistance for Small Entities
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
4. Collection of Information
    This rule may be found to call for a new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). The
Coast Guard solicited voluntary information concerning this rulemaking
from 10 of the 10-14 maritime industry entities that have applied for
waivers to deviate from this RNA during the past four years. This
solicitation did not meet the guidelines of a new collection of
information. The information solicited from the maritime industry and
waterway users was specific to the impacts of the RNA. Questions
included but were not limited to, addressing the economic costs and
benefits of providing an option for vessels and facilities to deviate
from the RNA restriction by providing Hurricane Operations Plans
allowing them to remain in areas of the RNA during enforcement.
Comments received during public meetings and public comment periods
throughout this rulemaking project, show that industry wants the option
to safely and securely deviate from the RNA restriction. Facilities
operating in this area are aware of the threat of tropical weather
conditions and already have operation plans specific to Hurricane
season in place. Such a plan is part of their normal course of
business. Therefore, this final rule does call for a collection of
information in the form of an operational plan from vessels and
facilities that wish to deviate from the restrictions under the RNA
when enforced. As understood from industry and waterway user comments
and responses to the posed questions, no new information would need to
be collected. Such requirement replaces the waiver option in the
existing RNA.
    Still, the Coast Guard has been advised that this final rule may
include a collection of information as defined under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar
actions. Regarding the burden to respond to this collection of
information, under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial
resources necessary to comply with the information required to deviate
under this rule is excluded, and therefore should not be considered a
burden because it will be incurred in the normal course of business and
activities.
    The Coast Guard will publish a notice requesting comments on
revising existing OMB Control Number: 1625-0043 to include any
collection of information resulting from requirements to voluntarily
deviate from this RNA. OMB Control Number 1625-0043. The title and
description of the information collection, a description of those who
must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual
burden are included in that notice, which may be found under the same
docket number, USCG-2009-0139, as indicated under ADDRESSES.
5. Federalism
    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
6. Protest Activities
    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
8. Taking of Private Property
    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform
    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
10. Protection of Children
    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
11. Indian Tribal Governments
    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
12. Energy Effects
    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
13. Technical Standards
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
14. Environment
    We have analyzed this rule under Management Directive 023-01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42
U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This Final Rule
involves establishing a regulated navigation area as defined within
this regulation, which is categorically excluded under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.838 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.838  Regulated Navigation Area; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. The following is a regulated navigation area (RNA):
    (1) The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) from Mile Marker (MM) 22
East of Harvey Locks (EHL), west on the GIWW, including the Michoud
Canal and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC), extending North \1/
2\ mile from the Seabrook Flood Gate Complex out into Lake
Pontchartrain and South to the IHNC Lock.
    (2) The Harvey Canal, between the Lapalco Boulevard Bridge and the
confluence of the Harvey Canal and the Algiers Canal;
    (3) The Algiers Canal, from the Algiers Lock to the confluence of
the Algiers Canal and the Harvey Canal;
    (4) The GIWW from the confluence of Harvey Canal and Algiers Canal
to MM 7.5 West of Harvey Locks (WHL)
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) Breakaway means a floating vessel that is adrift and that is
not under its own power or the control of a towboat, or secured to its
moorings.
    (2) COTP means the Captain of the Port, New Orleans;
    (3) Facility means a fleeting, mooring, industrial facility or
marina along the shoreline at which vessels are or can be moored and
which owns, possesses, moors, or leases vessels located in the areas
described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) Fleet includes one or more tiers of barges.
    (4) Fleeting or mooring facility means the area along the shoreline
at which vessels are or can be moored.
    (5) Floating vessel means any floating vessel to which the Ports
and Waterways Safety Act, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq., applies.
    (6) Mooring barge or spar barge means a barge moored to mooring
devices or secured to the ground by spuds, and to which other barges
may be moored.
    (7) Mooring device includes a deadman, anchor, pile or other
reliable holding apparatus.
    (8) Navigational structures are the Seabrook Floodgate Complex, the
IHNC Lake Borgne Surge Barrier, and the West Closure Complex components
of the Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS).
    (9) Person in charge includes any owner, agent, pilot, master,
officer, operator, crewmember, supervisor, dispatcher or other person
navigating, controlling, directing or otherwise responsible for the
movement, action, securing, or security of any vessel, barge, tier,
fleet or fleeting or mooring facility subject to the regulations in
this section.
    (10) Tier means barges moored interdependently in rows or groups.
    (11) Port Coordination Team is a body of public and private port
stakeholders led by the COTP whose purpose is to share information,
establish priorities, recommend and implement actions to address risks
to ports and waterways during incidents and events.
    (12) Tropical Event means the time period immediately preceding,
during, and immediately following the expected impact of heavy weather
from a tropical cyclone.
    (c) Enforcement. (1) The provisions of paragraph (d) of this
section will be enforced during a tropical event beginning 24 hours in
advance of the predicted closure of the IHNC Lake Borgne Surge Barrier
structure within the HSDRRS (IHNC & GIWW) in the area defined in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (2) The provisions of paragraph (d) of this section will be
enforced beginning 24 hours in advance of the predicted closure of the
West Closure Complex within the HSDRRS (Harvey & Algiers Canals) in the
area defined in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of this section.
    (3) If the Coast Guard receives notice of a closure less than 24
hours before

closure, the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section will be
enforced upon the COTP receiving the notice of predicted closing.
    (4) In the event that a particularly dangerous storm is predicted,
the COTP, in consultation with the Port Coordination Team, may require
all floating vessels to evacuate the RNA beginning as early as 72 hours
before predicted closure of any navigational structure or upon notice
that particularly dangerous storm conditions are approaching, whichever
is less.
    (5) The COTP will notify the maritime community of the enforcement
periods for this RNA through Marine Safety Information Bulletins and
Safety Broadcast Notices to Mariners.
    (d) Regulations. During the period that the RNA is enforced and
before closure of the navigational structures, all floating vessels
must depart the RNA except as follows:
    (1) Floating vessels may remain in the Harvey and Algiers Canals,
provided they are moored sufficiently to prevent a breakaway and meet
the minimum mooring requirements and conditions set forth in paragraphs
(f) and (g) of this section.
    (2) Floating vessels may remain in the Michoud Canal at least \1/4\
mile north of the intersection of the Michoud Canal and the GIWW, the
GIWW from MM 15 EHL to MM 10 EHL, provided they are moored sufficiently
to prevent a breakaway and meet the minimum mooring requirements and
conditions set forth in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section.
    (3) During the period that the RNA is enforced and before closure
of the navigational structures, vessels may transit through the RNA en
route to a destination outside of the RNA given there is sufficient
time to transit prior to the closure of a navigational structure, or
they may transit to a facility within the RNA with which they have a
prearranged agreement. These vessel movements and time critical
decisions will be made by the COTP in consultation with the Port
Coordination Team.
    (4) The COTP may review, on a case-by-case basis, alternatives to
minimum mooring requirements and conditions set forth in paragraphs (f)
and (g) of this section and may approve a deviation to these
requirements and conditions should they provide an equivalent level of
safety.
    (e) Special Requirements for Facilities. In addition to the mooring
and towboat requirements discussed in paragraph (f) and (g) of this
section, Facilities within the area described in paragraph (a) of this
section that wish to deviate from these restrictions because they have
vessels intending to remain within the areas allowed in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section shall comply with the below
documentation and maintenance requirements in order to obtain the
COTP's approval for their vessel(s) to remain in the closed RNA.
    (1) Annual Hurricane Operations Plan. All facilities that have
vessels intending to deviate from this RNA and remain within the areas
allowed in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section shall develop an
operations plan. The operations plan shall be readily available by May
1st of each calendar year for review by the COTP. The Annual Hurricane
Operations Plan shall include:
    (i) A description of the maximum number of vessels the facility
intends to have remaining at any one time during hurricane season.
    (ii) A detailed plan for any vessel(s) that are intended to be
sunk/grounded in place when the RNA is enforced if evacuation is not
possible.
    (iii) A diagram of the waterfront facility and fleeting area.
    (iv) Name, call sign, official number, and operational status of
machinery on board (i.e., engines, generators, fire fighting pumps,
bilge pumps, anchors, mooring machinery, etc.) each standby towboat.
    (v) Characteristics for each vessel remaining at the fleeting or
mooring facility, as applicable (length, breadth, draft, air draft,
gross tonnage, hull type, horsepower, single or twin screw);
    (vi) Details of mooring arrangements in accordance with mooring
requirements and conditions set forth in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
section or COTP case-by-case approved deviations;
    (vii) Certification by a professional engineer that the mooring
arrangements are able to withstand winds of up to 140 mph, a surge
water level of eleven feet, a current of four mph and a wave height of
three feet within the canal basin in the area defined in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section and a surge water level of eight feet, a current
of four mph, and a wave height of two and a half feet within the canal
basin in the area defined in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of this
section;
    (viii) Emergency contact information for the owner/operator, and/or
agent of the facility/property.
    (ix) 24-hour emergency contact information for qualified
individuals empowered in writing by the owners/operators to make on-
site decisions and authorize expenditures for any required pollution
response or salvage.
    (x) Full insurance disclosure to the COTP. Vessels moored to a
facility shall provide insurance information to the facility.
    (2) Storm Specific Verification Report. 72 hrs prior to predicted
closure of the navigational structures, those facilities which have
vessels that intend to remain within the RNA shall submit a Storm
Specific Verification Report to the COTP New Orleans. The requirements
for this Storm Specific Verification Report are located in the Canal
Hurricane Operations Plan, which is Enclosure Six to the Sector New
Orleans Maritime Hurricane Contingency Port Plan, http://homeport.uscg.mil/nola. The report shall include:
    (i) Updated contact information, including names of manned
towboat(s) and individuals remaining on the towboat(s).
    (ii) Number of vessels currently moored and mooring configurations
if less than stated in Annual Hurricane Operations Plan.
    (iii) If the number of vessels exceeds the amount listed in the
Annual Hurricane Operations Plan, describe process and timeframe for
evacuating vessels to bring total number of vessels into alignment with
the Annual Hurricane Operations Plan.
    (3) The person in charge of a facility shall inspect each mooring
wire, chain, line and connecting gear between mooring devices and each
wire, line and connecting equipment used to moor each vessel, and each
mooring device. Inspections shall be performed according to the
following timelines and guidance:
    (i) Annually between May 1 and June 1 of each calendar year; and
    (ii) After vessels are added to, withdrawn from, or moved at a
facility, each mooring wire, line, and connecting equipment of each
barge within each tier affected by that operation; and
    (iii) At least weekly between June 1 and November 30; and
    (iv) 72 hrs prior to predicted closure of the navigation structures
within this RNA; or within 6 hrs of the predicted closure, if the
notice of predicted closure is less than 72 hrs.
    (4) The person who inspects moorings shall take immediate action to
correct any deficiency.
    (5) Facility Records. The person in charge of a fleeting or mooring
facility shall maintain, and make available to the COTP, records
containing the following information:
    (i) The time of commencement and termination of each inspection.
    (ii) The name of each person who makes the inspection.
    (iii) The identification of each vessel, barge entering or
departing the fleeting

or mooring facility, along with the following information:
    (A) Date and time of entry and departure; and
    (B) The names of any hazardous cargo which the vessel is carrying.
    (6) The person in charge of a facility shall ensure continuous
visual surveillance of all vessels at the facility.
    (7) The person who observes the vessels shall:
    (i) Inspect for movements that are unusual for properly secured
vessels; and
    (ii) Take immediate action to correct each deficiency.
    (f) Mooring Requirements. Facility owners shall consider all
requirements within this section as minimum standards. Title 33 CFR
165.803, United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-159 and American Society of
the Civil Engineers (ASCE)7 should be utilized by Professional
Engineers in the certification of the Annual Hurricane Operations Plan.
    (1) No person may secure a vessel to trees or to other vegetation.
    (2) No person may allow a vessel to be moored with unraveled or
frayed lines or other defective or worn mooring.
    (3) No person may moor barges side to side unless they are secured
to each other from fittings as close to each corner of abutting sides
as practicable.
    (4) No person may moor barges end to end unless they are secured to
each other from fittings as close to each corner of abutting ends as
practicable.
    (5) A vessel may be moored to mooring devices if both ends of that
vessel are secured to mooring devices.
    (6) Barges may be moored in tiers if each shoreward barge is
secured to mooring devices at each end.
    (7) A vessel must be secured as near as practicable to each
abutting corner by:
    (i) Three parts of wire rope of at least 1\1/4\ inch diameter with
an eye at each end of the rope passed around the timberhead, caval, or
button;
    (ii) A mooring of natural or synthetic fiber rope that has at least
the breaking strength of three parts of 1\1/4\ inch diameter wire rope;
or
    (iii) Fixed rigging that is at least equivalent to three parts of
1\1/4\ inch diameter wire rope.
    (8) The person in charge shall ensure that all mooring devices,
wires, chains, lines and connecting gear are of sufficient strength and
in sufficient number to withstand forces that may be exerted on them by
moored vessels/barges.
    (g) Towboat Requirements. The person in charge of a fleeting or
mooring facility must ensure:
    (1) Each facility consisting of eight or more vessels that are not
under their own power must be attended by at least one radar-equipped
towboat for every 50 vessels.
    (2) Each towboat required must be:
    (i) Able to secure any breakaways;
    (ii) Capable of safely withdrawing or moving any vessel at the
fleeting or mooring facility;
    (iii) Immediately operational;
    (iv) Radio-equipped;
    (v) No less than 800 horsepower;
    (vi) Within 500 yards of the vessels.
    (3) The person in charge of each towboat required must maintain a
continuous guard on the frequency specified by current Federal
Communications Commission regulations found in 47 CFR part 83; a
continuous watch on the vessels moored at facility; and report any
breakaway as soon as possible to the COTP via telephone, radio or other
means of rapid communication.
    (h) Transient vessels will not be permitted to seek safe haven in
the RNA except in accordance with a prearranged agreement between the
vessel and a facility within the RNA.
    (i) Penalties. Failure to comply with this section may result in
civil or criminal penalties pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.

    Dated: April 1, 2014.
K.S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-08265 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Richard Beckstead < Beckstead@ Co. Clark . NV. US>

08/ 04/ 2004 03: 40 PM To: JohnJ Kelly/ R9/ USE cripps@ ndep. nv. gov cc: Harish Agarwal < AG < FOLLE@ Co. Clark. NV. US>, Christine Robinson < ROBINSON@ Co. Clark. NV. US>, Michael Subject: Supplemental information to Clark County's 11 factor analysis.

As DAQEM was finalizing its submittal of its 11 factor analysis for the nonattainment boundary in Clark County, John Kelly, EPA Region IX, called in and asked that Clark County's 11 factor analysis take into consideration future growth issues such as:

Ivanpah Hydrographic Area ( 164A, 164B 165, 166) · Expansion projects along I 15 corridor · Ivanpah Energy Power Plant ( ATC issued by DAQEM) · Future Airport in Ivanpah Valley ( Year 2015) ( Proposed, High Priority)

Apex Hydrographic Area ( 216, 217) · Duke Energy Power Plant ( ATC issued by DAQEM) · Cal Pine Power Plant ( straddles Apex and Moapa Hydrographic Areas) · Harry Allen Power Plant ( addition of a turbine) application in house. · Chemical Lime Company ( major modification) ( proposed)

Moapa Hydrographic Area ( 218) · Cal Pine Power Plant ( ATC issued by EPA Region IX) · Ash Grove Cement Company ( proposed)

El Dorado Hydrographic Area ( 213) · Copper Mountain Power Plant ( ATC issued by DAQEM)

Each of these new or modifying facilities and activities will result in additional NOx and VOC emissions in the hydrographic areas in which they are located. These sources were not discussed within the section on " Expected Growth" in the submitted report entitled Nevada Air Quality Designations Boundary Recommendations for the 8 Hour Ozone NAAQS for Clark County, Nevada. John asked that these be documented separately, if necessary, so that EPA can consider them, and ask questions as it considers the submittal from the State of Nevada. The impact of these and other existing sources on Hydrographic Area 212 become significant due to transport resulting from prominent wind patterns within the areas surrounding 212. Typically, the upper level winds will travel from southwest to northeast, west to east, or from northwest to southeast. However, surface winds do travel from northeast to southwest and from east to west on occasion. This east to west wind has occurred on at least two occasions when exceedances occurred in the Las Vegas and Apex valleys. This phenomenon lends support to the assumption that emissions generated in Apex and Moapa valleys may have an impact on the nonattainment status for the Las Vegas Valley. DAQEM records indicate that studies have been done years ago regarding the winds around the Las Vegas Valley. We are searching for copies of these old reports and will make them available upon request. Internet searches of the meteorological data that is available from various sites around Clark County support the conclusions that emissions from hydrographic areas 216 and 218 can be transported to hydrographic area 212 on occasion. These can be made available upon request. If there is anything DAQEM can do to assist in the analysis of its submittal, please contact me, Richard Beckstead at ( 702) 455 1669, and we will provide whatever information that is available. Sincerely,

Richard Beckstead DAQEM Permitting Manager Beckstead@ co. clark. nv. us


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91230-91232]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30253]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79525; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .02
to Rule 960NY in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in Options Classes in
Certain Issues

December 12, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on November 28, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Rule 960NY in
order to extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in certain issues
(``Pilot Program'' or ``Pilot'') previously approved by the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') through June 30, 2017. The
Pilot Program is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2016.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the Pilot Program,\4\ which is
currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2016, until June 30,
2017.\5\ The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot would allow for
further analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how the
Pilot Program should be structured in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55162 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4738 (February 1, 2007) (original approval of Pilot).
The Pilot has been extended several times since the original
approval, the most recent extension was obtained in earlier this
year. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78176 (June 28, 2016),
81 FR 43320 (July 1, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-61) (most recent
extension of the Pilot until December 31, 2016).
    \5\ See proposed Commentary .02 to Rule 960NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During this extension of the Pilot, as is the case today, the
Exchange may replace any option class that is currently included in the
Pilot Program and that has been delisted with the next most actively
traded, multiply listed option class that is not yet participating in
the Pilot Program (``replacement class''). In light of the extension,
the Exchange also proposes that any replacement class would be
determined based on national average daily volume in the preceding six
months, and would be added on the second trading day following January
1, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id. The month immediately preceding a replacement
class's addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., December) would not be
used for purposes of the analysis for determining the replacement
class. Thus, a replacement class to be added on the second trading
day following January 1, 2017 would be identified based on The
Option Clearing Corporation's trading volume data from June 1, 2016
through November 30, 2016. The Exchange will announce the
replacement issues to the Exchange's membership through a Trader
Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Pilot
Program: All classes currently participating will remain the same and
all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the
benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be
able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been
demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to
participate in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders,
investors and public customers and viewed as successful by the other
options exchanges participating in it. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act because it would
allow the Exchange to extend the Pilot Program prior to its expiration
on December 31, 2016. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not
propose any new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, but
instead relates to the continuation of an existing program that
operates on a pilot basis.
    The Exchange believes that the Pilot Program promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by enabling public customers and other
market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell
options to the benefit of all market participants.
    The proposal to extend the Pilot Program is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system, by allowing the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of
the Pilot Program while also allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot Program.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change would allow for further analysis of the Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change would also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Pilot Program
is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges.
The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program would allow for
continued competition between Exchange market participants trading
similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the
same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow
with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot
Program.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B)\13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-111 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-111. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-111 and should
be submitted on or before January 6, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2016-30253 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34265-34267]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-2859; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-04-AD;
Amendment 39-18536; AD 2016-11-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1D and 1D1 turboshaft engines with a pre-
modification (mod) TU357 gas generator module (M03), installed. This AD
requires removing the pre-modification (mod) TU357 gas generator module
(M03) and replacing with a part eligible for installation. This AD was
prompted by reports of divergent rubbing between the piston shaft small
diameter labyrinth and the rear bearing support. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failure of the labyrinth seal and engine, in-flight
shutdown, and loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40
00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
2859; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2016 (81 FR
10544). The NPRM proposed to correct

an unsafe condition for the specified products.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD 2016-0009, dated January 13, 2016 (referred to hereinafter as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Some cases of divergent rubbing between the piston shaft small
diameter labyrinth and the rear bearing support have been reported.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncommanded
engine in-flight shutdown.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-2859.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 10544, March 1,
2016).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Related Service Information

    Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292
72 1357, Version B, dated November 12, 2015. The MSB describes
procedures for installing a post-modification (mod) TU357 gas generator
module (M03). This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 426 engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about
40 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $16,500 per engine.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $8,477,400.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-11-09 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-18536; Docket No. FAA-2016-
2859; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-04-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 5, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Arriel 1D and 1D1 turboshaft engines with
a pre-modification (mod) TU357 gas generator module (M03),
installed.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of divergent rubbing between the
piston shaft small diameter labyrinth and the rear bearing support.
We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the labyrinth seal and
engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the helicopter.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Within 4 months or 240 engine operating hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, remove the pre-
modification (mod) TU357 gas generator module (M03) from service and
replace with a part eligible for installation.
    (2) Reserved.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2016-0009,
dated January 13, 2016, for more information. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2016-2859.
    (3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72
1357, Version B, dated November 12, 2015, which is not incorporated
by reference in this AD, can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using
the contact information in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.
    (4) Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74
40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 23, 2016.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12549 Filed 5-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68731]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27355]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
November 20, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Litigation matter; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 13, 2014.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27355 Filed 11-14-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM DATE: October 31, 2005 SUBJECT: Summary of October 5, 2005 Small Spark Ignition Engine Technical Workshop FROM: Phil Carlson, Engineer Assessment and Standards Division TO: Docket OAR 2004 0008 On October 5, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) hosted a technical workshop on small gasoline nonroad engine emission control in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The focus of the morning portion of the meeting was to present information related to the safety implications of applying catalysts to small gasoline nonroad engines to comply with more stringent emission standards under consideration by EPA. The focus of the afternoon portion of the meeting was to discuss a safety study being commissioned by the International Consortium on Fire, Safety, Health and the Environment ( ICFSHE). A copy of the agenda for the meeting is attached to this memorandum. A list of the attendees is also attached to this memorandum. The purpose of this memo is to provide a list of the presentations made during the workshop and highlights of discussions which occurred during the workshop.

The meeting began with introductory remarks by Margo Oge, Director of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( OTAQ), George Miller, Chairman of ICFSHE, and Bob Varney, Regional Administrator for EPA's Region I.

During the morning portion of the workshop, EPA, the California Air Resources Board ( CARB), State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators ( STAPPA), and several engine manufacturers gave presentations. A copy of the various presentations made at the workshop has been placed in the docket for EPA's upcoming Phase 3 regulations, Docket OAR 2004 0008. Table 1 lists the formal presentations made at the workshop and the accompanying document numbers for each of the presentations as designated in the docket.

Table 1 Presenter Docket Document Number EPA OAR 2004 0008 0276 CARB OAR 2004 0008 0270 Honda OAR 2004 0008 0272 Kohler OAR 2004 0008 0274 Kawasaki OAR 2004 0008 0273 Tecumseh OAR 2004 0008 0280 Briggs and Stratton OAR 2004 0008 0271 Swedish National Testing and Research Institute OAR 2004 0008 0275 2 During the afternoon portion of the meeting, the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute gave a presentation, and the National Association of State Fire Marshals spoke. A copy of the Swedish Institute's presentation has also been placed in the docket ( see Table 1).

Fred Postel spoke on behalf of the National Association of State Fire Marshals ( NASFM). Mr. Postel noted their concerns regarding increased risk from the use of catalysts on small gasoline nonroad engines. They do not want to see any increase in risk from the Phase 3 standards that might be adopted by EPA. Mr. Passavant of the EPA asked if the Fire Marshals could provide EPA with a list of the scenarios they are concerned about in addition to the three listed in the September 22, 2004 NASFM letter ( document OAR 2004 0008 0278) so that EPA could consider those as part of our safety study.

George Miller, Chariman of ICFSHE, led a discussion regarding the safety evaluation ICFSHE is planning to perform through the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute. Dr. Andersson of the Swedish Institute also presented an overview of the safety evaluation they are planning to perform for ICFSHE. A copy of the draft work plan for the safety evaluation has been placed in the docket for the Phase 3 rule ( document OAR 2004 0008 0279). After some discussion of the workplan, Mr. Miller agreed to accept comments on the workplan and to send a letter requesting comment to all parties present after EPA provides a copy of the attendee's list to ICFSHE.

Attachments 3 AGENDA Small Spark Ignition Engine Technical Workshop U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 October 5, 2005, 8: 30 AM to 2: 00 PM I. Introductions and Opening Remarks ( 8: 30 8: 45) A. EPA  Ms. Margo Oge B. ICFSHE  Mr. George Miller C. EPA  Mr. Bob Varney II. Presentations on Engine Technical Work and Safety Assessment A. EPA Presentation ( 8: 45 10: 15) B. CARB ( 10: 15 10: 25) C. STAPPA/ ALAPCO ( 10: 25 10: 35) D. Engine and Equipment OEMs  Honda ( 10: 40 10: 45)  Kohler ( 10: 45 10: 50)  Tecumseh ( 10: 50 10: 55)  Briggs & Stratton ( 11: 00 11: 30)

III. Workshop Wrap up ( 11: 30 11: 45)

IV. EPA Small Engine Lab Tour and Demonstrations ( 11: 45 12: 45)

WORKING LUNCH   12: 45 V. Background of ICFSHE Study of Fire Performance of Catalytic Converters Used with Outdoor Power Equipment  Mr. Miller A. Research objectives, plan and status of project  Dr. Petra Andersson B. Review and discussion of three incident scenarios defined by fire safety officials  Chief Fred Postel C. Discussion of research plan relative to the available science  Dr. Andersson D. Review of role and membership of Project Steering Committee  Mr. Miller VI. Meeting Wrap up and Review of Action Items 4 ICFSHE/ NVFEL Meeting Attendees October 5, 2005 ASSOCIATION NAME EMAIL ADDRESS PHONE ACS Peter Hampton phampton@ acslimited. ca ACS 1865 Birchmount Road Toronto, Ontario Canada M1P2J5 416 671 6078 ACS Cuneyt Uykur cuykur@ asclimited. ca ACS 1865 Birchmount Road Toronto, Ontario Canada M1P2J5 416 445 9610 ext. 221 American Lung Association of New York State Peter Iwanowitz peteri@ alanys. org American Lung Association of New York State 3 Winners Circle, Suite 300 Albany, NY 12205 518 453 0172 Briggs & Stratton Patricia Hanz hanz. patty@ basco. com Briggs & Stratton 12301 W. Wirth Street Wauwatosa, WI 53222 414 256 1198 Briggs & Stratton Pete Hotz hotz. pete@ basco. com Briggs & Stratton 3333 North 124th Street Wauwatosa, WI 53222 414 256 5139 Briggs & Stratton Marv Klowak klowak. marv@ basco. com Briggs & Stratton 3560 North 124th Street Wauwatosa, WI 53222 414 259 5538 5 Briggs & Stratton Bill Latus latus. bill@ basco. com Briggs & Stratton 3560 North 124th Street Wauwatosa, WI 53222 414 259 5584 Brown & Gidding ( Honda) Michael Brown mab@ brown gidding. com Brown & Gidding 3201 New Mexico, NW Room 3242 Washington, DC 20016 Burke Consulting George Burke georgeburk@ cox. net Burke Consulting 3226 Sleepy Hollow Road Falls Church, VA 22042 202 288 2104 CPSC Mark Kumagai,

Director mkumagai@ cpsc. gov CPSC Division of Mechanical Engineering Directorate for Engineering Services US Consumer Product Safety Commission 4330 East West Highway, Suite 611 Bethesda, MD 20814 301 504 7532 EMA Roger Gault rgault@ ema. mail. org EMA 2 N. LaSalle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 312 827 8742 EPA Cheryl Caffrey caffrey. cheryl@ epa. gov US EPA 2000Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734 214 4849 EPA Phil Carlson carlson. phil@ epa. gov US EPA 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734 214 4270 6 EPA Chet France france. chet@ epa. gov US EPA 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734 214 4338 EPA Cleophas Jackson jackson. cleophas@ epa. gov US EPA 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734 214 4824 EPA Glenn Passavant passavant. glenn@ epa. gov US EPA 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734 214 4408 EPA  New England Bob Judge judge. robert@ epa. gov EPA New England 1 Congress Street Suite 1100 ( caq)

Boston, MA 02114 2023 617 918 1045 EPA  New England Bob Varney varney. robert@ epa. gov EPA New England 1 Congress Street Boston, MA 02114 2023 617 918 1012 Honda Tom Bingham thomas_ bingham@ ahm. honda. co m American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

4900 Marconi Drive Alpharetta, GA 30005 678 339 2630 Honda David Raney david_ raney@ ahm. honda. com American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

1919 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90501 2746 310 783 3264 ICFSHE Fred Postel,

Fire Chief fred. postel@ ci.

wsacramento ca. us West Sacramento Fire Department 1110 W. Capitol Avenue West Sacramento, CA 95691 916 617 4680 7 ICFSHE Pete Sparber psparber@ aol. com ICFSHE 1319 F Street, NW Suite 301 Washington, DC 20004 202 393 3040 Kawasaki Jeff Shelter jeff. shelter@ kmc usa. com Kawasaki Motors Corporation 9950 Jeronimo Road Irvine, CA 92618 2084 949 770 0400 Kirkland & Ellis LLP ( Briggs & Stratton) Stu Drake sdrake@ kirkland. com Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 15th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 202 879 5094 Kohler Todd Gerhardt todd. gerhardt@ kohlar. com Kohler Company Mail Stop 097 444 Highland Drive Kohler, WI 53044 920 457 4441 MECA Joe Kubsh jkubsh@ meca. org MECA 1730 M Street, NW Suite 206 Washington, DC 20036 202 296 4797 MECA Dale McKinnon dmckinnon@ meca. org MECA 1730 M Street, NW Suite 206 Washington, DC 20036 202 296 4797 New York Department of Environmental Conservation Steve Flint seflint@ gw. dec. state. ny. us N. Y. Department of Environmental Conservation   Division of Air 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 518 402 8292 8 OPEI James McNew jmcnew@ opei. org Outdoor Power Equipment Institute 341 South Patrick Street Alexandra. VA 22314 703 549 7600 STAPPA/ ALAPCO Bill Becker,

Director bbecker@ 4cleanair. org STAPPA/ ALAPCO 444 N. Capitol Street, NW Suite 307 Washington, DC 20001 202 624 7864 Tecumseh Brian Fette bfette@ tecumsehpower. com Tecumseh Engine & Transmission Group 900 North Street Grafton, WI 53024 262 376 8231 Tecumseh Mark Holschuh mholschuh@ tecumsehpower. com Tecumseh 1604 Michigan Avenue New Holstein, WI 53061 902 898 2728 Toro Ronald Lloyd ron. lloyd@ toro. com The Toro Company Consumer Division 8111 Lyndale Avenue, South Bloomington, MN 55420 1196 952 948 4830 WcHeraeus Wayne Richter wayne. richter@ heraeus. com WcHeraeus Gmbh 1588 Woodland Drive Grafton, WI 53024 262 770 0253