[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25594-25595]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31013; Amdt. No. 3639]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective May 5, 2015. The compliance date for each
SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-
0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes
SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory
description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for
an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are
incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1
CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part Sec.  97.20. The applicable FAA forms are
FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required
by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26,1979) ; and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For
the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 10, 2015.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 28 MAY 2015

Haleyville, AL, Posey Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-B
Franklin, VA, Franklin Muni-John Beverly Rose, VOR RWY 9, Amdt 14C,
CANCELED
Franklin, VA, Franklin Muni-John Beverly Rose, VOR/DME RWY 27, Amdt
9F, CANCELED

Effective 25 JUNE 2015

Gustavus, AK, Gustavus, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 3
Tampa, FL, Tampa Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 2
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 4L, Amdt 2
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, LDA/DME RWY 6R, Amdt 1C,
CANCELED
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, LDA/DME RWY 24L, Amdt 1C,
CANCELED
Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV (RNP) W RWY 13R, Orig-B
Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV (RNP) X RWY 13R, Orig-B
Houston, TX, William P Hobby, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, ILS RWY 4 (SA CAT
I), ILS RWY 4 (CAT II), ILS RWY 4 (CAT III), Amdt 42
Roosevelt, UT, Roosevelt Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig-B

[FR Doc. 2015-10227 Filed 5-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56681-56683]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22522]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67804; File No. TP 12-10]

Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17
and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to iShares, Inc. and iShares MSCI
Frontier 100 Index Fund Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and
Rule 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation M

September 7, 2012.
    By letter dated September 7, 2012 (the ``Letter''), as supplemented
by conversations with the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets,
counsel for iShares, Inc. (the ``Company'') on behalf of the Company,
the iShares MSCI Frontier 100 Index Fund (the ``Fund''), any national
securities exchange on or through which shares issued by the Fund
(``Shares'') may subsequently trade, and persons or entities engaging
in transactions in Shares (collectively, the ``Requestors'') requested
exemptions, or interpretive or no-action relief, from Rule 10b-17 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act'') and
Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M in connection with secondary market
transactions in Shares and the creation or redemption of aggregations
of Shares of at least 50,000 shares (``Creation Units'').
    The Company was organized on August 31, 1994, as a Maryland
corporation. The Company is registered with the Commission under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (``1940 Act''), as an open-
end management investment company. The Company currently consists of
approximately 50 investment series or portfolios. The Requestors
request relief related to the Fund, a newly created series of the
Company. The Fund will invest in stocks consisting of the component
securities of the MSCI Frontier Markets 100 Index (the ``Index''),
consistent with the Fund's investment strategy. The Fund will use a
``passive'' or indexing approach to try to achieve the Fund's
investment objectives. The Index is a free float-adjusted market-
capitalization index designed to measure equity market performance of a
subset of the MSCI Frontier Markets index while putting greater
emphasis on tradability and liquidity as compared to the larger MSCI
Frontier Markets index.
    The Requestors represent, among other things, the following:
     Shares of the Fund will be issued by the Company, an open-
end management investment company that is registered with the
Commission;
     The Company will continuously redeem Creation Units at net
asset value (``NAV'') and the secondary market price of the Shares
should not vary substantially from the NAV of such Shares;
     Shares of the Fund will be listed and traded on the NYSE
Arca (the ``Exchange'');
     The Fund will hold 20 or more portfolio securities with no
one portfolio security constituting more than 25% of the Fund;
     The Fund will be managed to track a particular index all
the components of which have publicly available last sale trade
information;
     The intra-day proxy value of the Fund per share and the
value of the Index will be publicly disseminated by a major market data
vendor throughout the trading day;
     On each business day before the opening of business on the
Exchange (normally 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), BlackRock Fund Advisors
(an investment advisor registered under the Investment Advisors Act of
1940 that serves as the Fund's advisor) and Blackrock Investments, LLC
(a broker-dealer who is registered with the Commission under the
Exchange Act and acts as the Fund's principal

underwriter as defined in Section 2(a)(29) of the 1940 Act), through
the National Securities Clearing Corporation, will make available the
identities and quantities of the securities and other assets held by
the Fund which will form the basis for their calculation of NAV at the
end of the business day;
     The Exchange or other market information provider will
disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the
facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing
on a per-share basis, the current value of the securities and cash to
be deposited as consideration for the purchase of Creation Units;
     The arbitrage mechanism will be facilitated by the
transparency of the Fund's portfolio and the availability of the intra-
day indicative value, the liquidity of securities and other assets held
by the Fund, ability to acquire such securities, as well as the
arbitrageurs' ability to create workable hedges;
     The Fund will invest solely in liquid securities;
     The Fund will invest in securities that will facilitate an
effective and efficient arbitrage mechanism and the ability to create
workable hedges;
     The Requestors believe that arbitrageurs are expected to
take advantage of price variations between the Fund's market price and
its NAV; and
     A close alignment between the market price of Shares and
the Fund's NAV is expected.

Regulation M

    While redeemable securities issued by an open-end management
investment company are excepted from the provisions of Rule 101 and 102
of Regulation M, the Requestors may not rely upon that exception for
the Shares.\1\ However, we find that it is appropriate in the public
interest and is consistent with the protection of investors to grant a
conditional exception from Rules 101 and 102 to persons who may be
deemed to be participating in a distribution of Shares and the Fund as
described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While ETFs operate under exemptions from the definitions of
``open-end company'' under Section 5(a)(1) of the 1940 Act and
``redeemable security'' under Section 2(a)(32) of the 1940 Act, the
ETFs and their securities do not meet those definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 101 of Regulation M

    Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation rule
that, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any ``distribution
participant'' and its ``affiliated purchasers'' from bidding for,
purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase
any security, which is the subject of a distribution until after the
applicable restricted period, except as specifically permitted in the
rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines ``distribution'' to mean any
offering of securities that is distinguished from ordinary trading
transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of
special selling efforts and selling methods. The provisions of Rule 101
of Regulation M apply to underwriters, prospective underwriters,
brokers, dealers, or other persons who have agreed to participate or
are participating in a distribution of securities. The Shares are in a
continuous distribution and, as such, the restricted period in which
distribution participants and their affiliated purchasers are
prohibited from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce others
to bid for or purchase extends indefinitely.
    Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter,
particularly that the Company is a registered open-end management
investment company that will continuously redeem at the NAV Creation
Unit size aggregations of the Shares of the Fund and that a close
alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is
expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the
Company an exemption under paragraph (d) of Rule 101 of Regulation M
with respect to the Fund, thus permitting persons who may be deemed to
be participating in a distribution of Shares of the Fund to bid for or
purchase such Shares during their participation in such
distribution.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additionally, we confirm the interpretation that a
redemption of Creation Unit size aggregations of Shares of the Fund
and the receipt of securities in exchange by a participant in a
distribution of Shares of the Fund would not constitute an ``attempt
to induce any person to bid for or purchase, a covered security
during the applicable restricted period'' within the meaning of Rule
101 of Regulation M and therefore would not violate that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 102 of Regulation M

    Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security
holders, or any affiliated purchaser of such person from bidding for,
purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a
covered security during the applicable restricted period in connection
with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf of an issuer
or selling security holder.
    Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter,
particularly that the Company is a registered open-end management
investment company that will redeem at the NAV Creation Units of Shares
of the Fund and that a close alignment between the market price of
Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors to grant the Company an exemption under paragraph (e) of
Rule 102 of Regulation M with respect to the Fund, thus permitting the
Fund to redeem Shares of the Fund during the continuous offering of
such Shares.

Rule 10b-17

    Rule 10b-17, with certain exceptions, requires an issuer of a class
of publicly traded securities to give notice of certain specified
actions (for example, a dividend distribution) relating to such class
of securities in accordance with Rule 10b-17(b). Based on the
representations and facts in the Letter, in particular that the
concerns that the Commission raised in adopting Rule 10b-17 generally
will not be implicated if exemptive relief, subject to the conditions
below, is granted to the Company because market participants will
receive timely notification of the existence and timing of a pending
distribution,\3\ we find that it is appropriate in the public interest,
and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the Company a
conditional exemption from Rule 10b-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We also note that timely compliance with Rule 10b-
17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) would be impractical in light of the nature
of the Fund. This is because it is not possible for the Fund to
accurately project ten days in advance what dividend, if any, would
be paid on a particular record date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Rule 101(d) of Regulation M, that
the Company, based on the representations and facts presented in the
Letter and subject to the condition contained in this order, is exempt
from the requirements of Rule 101 with respect to the Fund, thus
permitting persons who may be deemed to be participating in a
distribution of Shares of the Fund to bid for or purchase such Shares
during their participation in such distribution.
    This exemptive relief is subject to the condition that such
transactions in Shares of the Fund or any related securities including
those deposited with the Fund or received from the Fund as part of the
creation or redemption process are not made for the purpose of creating
actual, or apparent, active trading in or raising or otherwise
affecting the price of such securities.

    It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 102(e) of Regulation M,
that the Company, based on the representations and the facts presented
in the Letter and subject to the condition contained in this order, is
exempt from the requirements of Rule 102 with respect to the Fund, thus
permitting the Fund to redeem Shares of the Fund during the continuous
offering of such Shares.
    This exemptive relief is subject to the condition that such
transactions in Shares of the Fund or any related securities including
those deposited with the Fund or received from the Fund as part of the
creation or redemption process are not made for the purpose of creating
actual, or apparent, active trading in or raising or otherwise
affecting the price of such securities.
    It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 10b-17(b)(2), that the
Company, based on the representations and the facts presented in the
Letter and subject to the conditions contained in this order, is exempt
from the requirements of Rule 10b-17 with respect to transactions in
the shares of the Fund.
    This exemptive relief is subject to the following conditions:
     The Company will comply with Rule 10b-17 except for Rule
10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b); and
     The Company will provide the information required by Rule
10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) to the Exchange as soon as practicable
before trading begins on the ex-dividend date, but in no event later
than the time when the Exchange last accepts information relating to
distributions on the day before the ex-dividend date.
    This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at
any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Persons
relying upon this exemption shall discontinue transactions involving
the Shares of the Fund under the circumstances described above and in
the Letter, pending presentation of the facts for the Commission's
consideration, in the event that any material change occurs with
respect to any of the facts or representations made by the Requestors.
In addition, persons relying on this exemption are directed to the
anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act,
particularly Sections 9(a), 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Responsibility for compliance with these and any other applicable
provisions of the federal securities laws must rest with the persons
relying on this exemption. This order should not be considered a view
with respect to any other question that the proposed transactions may
raise, including, but not limited to the adequacy of the disclosure
concerning, and the applicability of other federal or state laws to,
the proposed transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(6) and (9).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22522 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22033]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0258]

National Maritime Week Tugboat Races, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Special Local Regulation for
the annual National Maritime Week Tugboat Races in Elliott Bay, WA from
12 p.m. through 4:30 p.m. on May 14, 2011. This action is necessary to
ensure the safety of all participants and spectators from the inherent
dangers associated with these types of races which includes large
wakes. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter or
remain in the regulated area except for participants in the event,
supporting personnel, vessels registered with the event organizer, and
personnel or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1306 will be enforced from 12 p.m.
through 4:30 p.m. on May 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Ensign Anthony P. LaBoy, Sector Puget Sound Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Special
Local Regulation for the annual National Maritime Week Tugboat Races,
Seattle, WA in 33 CFR 100.1306 on May 14, 2011 from 12:00 p.m. through
4:30 p.m. This regulation can be found in the April 27, 1996 issue of
the Federal Register (61 FR 16710).
    A regulated area is established on that portion of Elliott Bay
along the Seattle waterfront in Puget Sound bounded by a line beginning
at: 47[deg]37'36'' N, 122[deg]22'42'' W; thence to 47[deg]37'24.5'' N,
122[deg]22'58.5'' W; thence to 47[deg]36'08'' N, 122[deg]20'53'' W;
thence to 47[deg]36'21'' N, 122[deg]20'31'' W; thence returning to the
origin. This regulated area resembles a rectangle measuring
approximately 3,900 yards along the shoreline between Pier 57 and Pier
89, and extending approximately 650 yards into Elliott Bay. Temporary
floating markers will be placed by the race sponsors to delineate the
regulated area. [Datum: NAD 1983]
    No person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area
except for participants in the event, supporting personnel, vessels
registered with the event organizer, and personnel or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    The Coast Guard will establish a patrol consisting of active and
auxiliary Coast Guard vessels and personnel in the regulated area
described above. The patrol shall be under the direction of a Coast
Guard officer or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port as
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may forbid and
control the movement of vessels in this regulated area.
    A succession of sharp, short blasts from whistle or horn from
vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the Patrol Commander
shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and comply
with the orders of the patrol vessel. Failure to do so may result in
expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1306 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated
area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice,
he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general
permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 7, 2011.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011-9532 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


APPENDIX B DEVELOPMENT OF THE METEOROLOGICAL MODEL SAN ANTONIO EAC REGION ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION MARCH 2004 Appendix B Table of Contents Page Background                                B 1 Meteorological Run 5d                        .   B 3 Diurnal Temperatures                      .  B 4 Wind Speeds                         . .. B 4 Soil Moisture                            B 4 Vertical Layers                          . B 4 Weather Patterns                          B 5 Evaluation of the Best Performing Simulation              B 5 Meteorological Run 6f                          .. B 6 Diurnal Temperatures                       . B 8 Wind Speed                           .. B 8 Weather Patterns                         . B 9 Evaluation of the Best Performing Simulation       .     ... B 9 Final MM5 Configuration                          B 11 Meteorological Run 5g                      ...    B 15 Statistical Evaluation of MM5 Run 5g                . B 20 Processing of MM5 Meteorological Fields for CAMx         ... B 21 Appendix B List of Tables Page Table B 1 Summary of Meteorological Sensitivity Tests ( eight runs)      B 3 Table B 2 Summary of Revised MM5 Applications            .. B 8 Table B 3 Comparison of Mean Daily Statistics Against Statistical Benchmark for the 4 km Grid                ... B 21 Table B 4 Meteorological Data Requirements for CAMx         ... B 22 Table B 5 Vertical Layer Structure for MM5 and CAMx for Sept. 13 20, 1999 Episode                   B 23 Appendix B List of Figures Page Figure B 1 Comparison of Ozone Levels Measured during Baylor University Airborne Sampling Project on September 17th And 18th with Ozone Levels Predicted by Original 1999 Model Simulation Met 3b for Time of Day and Altitude of Flights. ( Dotted lines represent collected Ozone data in parts per billion)                .. B 2 Figure B 2 Observed ( black) and Predicted ( red) Values for Run 5d For San Antonio/ Austin Region                . B 6 Figure B 3 Comparison of the Mixing Height Between the Original Model ( Run 4c), 5d, and 6f                  . B 3 Figure B 4 Comparison of Wind Speed and Direction, Temperature, Humidity Statistics for Original Meteorological Model Run ( black), 5d ( red), and 6f ( blue) for San Antonio   Austin     .. B 11 Figure B 5 Wind Statistics for Original Meteorological Model Run ( black), 5d ( red), and 6f ( blue) for San Antonio Austin Region                          . B 12 Figure B 6 Temperature Statistics for Meteorological Model Run ( black), 5d ( red), and 6f ( blue) for San Antonio Austin Region                          . B 13 Figure B 7 Humidity Statistics for Original Meteorological Model Run ( black), 5d ( red), and 6f ( blue) for San Antonio Austin Region                         .  B 14 Figure B 8 Hourly Wind Speeds for Runs 5d and 5g in the 4 km San Antonio Area Domain                     B 16 Figure B 9 Hourly Temperature for Runs 5d and 5g in the 4 km San Antonio Area Domain                     B 16 Figure B 10 Hourly Wind Direction for Runs 5d and 5g in the 4 km San Antonio Area Domain                     B 17 Figure B 11 Hourly Humidity for Runs 5d and 5g in the 4 km San Antonio Area Domain                     B 17 Figure B 12 Comparison of Ozone Levels Measured During Baylor University Airborne Sampling Project on September 17th With Ozone Levels Predicted by 5d and 5g Model Simulation For Time of Day and Altitude of Flights. ( Dotted line Represents collected ozone data in parts per billion ( ppb))     B 19 B 1 BACKGROUND The meteorological inputs used to create the original 1999 episode were developed by ENVIRON using the Fifth Generation Mesoscale Model, referred to as MM5. In their report on development of the 1999 episode simulation, ENVIRON acknowledged certain placement, and precipitation rather well for the September 1999 episode for the entire 4 km domain ( South Texas). However, the model only performed marginally when predicting humidity and pressure. Two persistent problems with the original MM5 model simulation, referred to as Met 3b, included wind speed   over predicting of wind speed at night and under predicting during the daytime   and over predicting of early morning temperatures.

The most significant problem in the San Antonio area was aloft wind direction1. On September 17 and 18, 1999, air quality sampling was conducted in the San Antonio   Austin area as part of the Baylor University Airborne Sampling Project conducted by TCEQ. The data collected from the Baylor aircraft flights were compared to predictions from the 1999 model simulation for the same days. While the model performed well in replicating peak ozone aloft in the urban plumes for the 17th and 18th, the spatial distribution was poor, indicating a problem with wind direction at those altitudes. Figure B 1 provides a comparison between the aircraft data and ozone levels predicted by the model for the correct time period and altitude of the flights. On September 17th the aircraft took measurements between 600   800 meters beginning at 1400 CDT. The flight on September 18th began at 1700 CDT and data were collected at about 700 meters during most of the flight. ( Emery, et. al., 2002) As shown in the figure, the peak ozone plumes predicted by the model are south of observed plumes for both days that data were collected.

In addition to wind direction issues, simulated ozone levels between the plumes were under predicted by 10   20 ppb when compared to observed data. This problem suggests that the model was generating insufficient regional background ozone levels. According to ENVIRON, insufficient background ozone indicates problems with the regional emissions inputs to the model, such as too few VOC emissions from biogenic sources. ( Emery, et. al., 2002) As part of the effort to improve the accuracy of the model, the South Texas Near Non Attainment areas contracted with the ENVIRON and with the University of Texas' Center for Energy and Environmental Resources ( UT CEER) to improve accuracy of meteorological input data for the 1999 episode model.

1 Typically, surface winds transport pollutants locally, while upper ( aloft) winds have the potential to transport ozone and its precursors much greater distances, often hundreds of kilometers ( APTI). B 2 Figure B 1. Comparison of Ozone Levels Measured during Baylor University Airborne Sampling Project on September 17th and 18th with Ozone Levels Predicted by Original 1999 Model Simulation Met 3b for Time of Day and Altitude of Flights. ( Dotted lines represent collected ozone data in parts per billion.)

September 17, 1999 2: 00 P. M. September 18, 1999 6: 00 P. M. B 3 ENVIRON, in conjunction with UT CEER, tested alternative MM5 configurations and parameter algorithms to find the combination that best replicate actual meteorological conditions during the 1999 high ozone episode. The best of these runs were presented to the air quality planners at TCEQ, and the four NNA partners for further analysis. The runs, labeled 5d, 5g, and 6f, each have unique strengths and weaknesses and impact the photochemical model in various ways, as described below.

METEOROLOGICAL RUN 5d The ENVIRON/ UT team conducted eight meteorological runs, labeled 5a, b, c, d, e, f, h, and I, using version 3.4 of the MM5 model while incorporating new databases and model configurations that proved to be successful in other applications throughout the country.

  Change to an alternative boundary layer scheme ( Blackadar or MRF) to investigate sensitivity to boundary layer mixing;   Change to an alternative radiation scheme ( RRTM) that is known to perform better in the humid Texas climate and may reduce the morning over predicted surface temperatures;   Utilize interactive multi layer soil moisture schemes now available with the latest release of MM5 ( v3.5) that would provide a more realistic feedback between soil and atmosphere; and   Test the effects of alternative observational analyses and FDDA techniques that may better characterize conditions in the south central U. S.

Table B 1. Summary of Meteorological Sensitivity Tests ( eight runs) Run ID Configuration Run 5c Identical to Run 4c ( the best performing of the original runs reported by Emery and Tai, 2002), except that the Blackadar PBL scheme was replaced by the Gayno Seaman PBL scheme.

Run 5 Identical to Run 5c except that the Dudhia Cloud radiation scheme was replaced by the RRTM radiation scheme Run 5b Identical to Run 5 except that data from the Texas Coastal Ocean Observation Network ( TCOON) and NOAA National Buoy Center were added to the original observational FDDA input data set.

Run 5d Identical to Run 5b, except that the MRF PBL scheme replaced the Blackadar PBL scheme.

Run 5e Identical to Run 5d, except that the standard 5 layer soil model was augmented by the bucket soil moisture option, and Run 5e used the standard climatological default soil moisture to define the initial soil conditions by land use category ( up to this point, soil moisture was reduced 25% from standard values as in the original Run 4c).

Run 5f Identical to Run 5e, except that the reduced soil moisture was used similarly to Runs 4c and 5 5d.

Run 5i Identical to Run 5d except that the number of vertical layers was increased from 28 to 41, resulting in about twice the vertical resolution between approximately 250 and 4600 meters above the surface.

Run 5h Identical to Run 5e ( bucket soil moisture with standard default initial soil moisture values) except that the number of vertical layers was increased from 28 to 41. B 4 When conducting the eight runs, which are listed on table B 1, modelers tested two methodologies for determining the depth of the planetary boundary layer ( the Blackadar and Medium Range Forecast schemes), two radiation schemes2 ( the Dudhia Cloud and Rapid Radiation Transfer Model), three versions of the four dimensional data assimilation ( FDDA) model3 ( versions 11, 12, and 13), three soil moisture schemes, and two vertical layer4 resolutions ( 28 layers versus 41 layers).

Diurnal Temperatures The Dudhia Cloud scheme overestimated the amount of radiation absorbed and reradiated by the atmosphere. This resulted in very warm nighttime minimum temperatures. When the RRTM radiation scheme was used rather than the Dudhia Cloud scheme, the simulated temperature range compared very closely with the observed diurnal temperature ranges. The simulated maximum temperatures were too cool compared to the observed maximum temperatures.

Wind Speeds Wind speeds were analyzed with the Blackadar PBL scheme and the MRF PBL scheme. The Blackadar PBL produced high daytime and nighttime winds, which suggested that the Blackadar approach produced an overly aggressive vertical transfer of momentum. It was also noted that higher winds near the top of the boundary layer may mix to the surface too rapidly. These occurrences can be related to the under prediction of maximum temperatures. The MRF PBL scheme did result in an improved prediction of both daytime and nighttime wind speeds. Nighttime winds were noted to be high however. With the MRF PBL scheme, the daytime maximum temperatures warmed by 1 to 2 K but remained below the observed temperatures.

Soil Moisture The use of the bucket soil moisture option in the model, rather than the five layer soil model, produced a consistent increase in wind speed. Maximum temperatures also improved slightly during the final days of the episode.

Vertical Layers In the modified run, the model was configured to run with 41 layers rather than 28 in order to investigate the effects of increased vertical resolution. Higher resolution ( usually more than 30 layers) in the vertical direction is recommended and widely adopted. The run did not indicate improvement in model performance at the boundary layer or at the surface.

2 Shortwave radiation from the sun and longwave radiation from the earth impact atmospheric processes by producing heat, moisture, and momentum exchanges, which drive the PBL. 3 Four dimensional data assimilation ( FDDA) refers to a sophisticated method of initializing a predictive model such as MM5. MM5 and similar models estimate meteorological processes using numerical equations. To make numerical forecasts, the models must have a starting point in which initial conditions are provided in the form of gridded data. FDDA combines numerical predictions with observations to provide a 4 dimensional estimate of initial meteorological parameters. The FDDA technique utilized to develop the refined 1999 episode was the " nudging" technique in which the model is gently pushed toward observed values using numeric equations. 4 The modeling team employed the " Sigma Coordinate System" in which the lowest vertical coordinate follows a smoothed version of the actual terrain. The higher sigma surfaces parallel the lowest coordinate but gradually transition to being nearly horizontal at the top of the coordinate system, typically above the tropopause. When 28 sigma levels are used, the 8 lowest layers make up the planetary boundary layer. By increasing the vertical layers to 41, additional vertical layers are focused in the boundary layer and jet stream, which provides a higher resolution than the 28 layer system. B 5 Weather Patterns Surface pressure patterns predicted by both the Blackadar and MRF runs compared well with observed pressure patterns. Cloud type and coverage across the domain were similar, however the Blackadar runs produced greater amounts of low level cloudiness over South Texas and Gulf of Mexico on some of the modeling days. Rainfall amounts was not predicted after the 14th of September, which was in concurrence with the observed rainfall levels. A deeper mixed layer was produced by the MRF PBL scheme than the Blackadar runs with heights greater by 25%  35%.

Evaluation of the Best Performing Simulation Overall, run 5d produced the best results of the eight sensitivity runs. Wind speed and wind direction improved when comparing run 5d results with the meteorological inputs used in the original 1999 simulation. However, 5d maintained a northerly wind bias throughout much of the episode. Run 5d predicted cooler daily temperatures than observed; but daily minimum temperatures were much closer to observed values than those predicted by other runs. Humidity resulted as erroneous predictions and may be a cause for concern not on model performance but rather errors in the simulation of spatial and temporal evolution of the boundary layer by the PBL scheme, particularly along the coast line. Figure B 2 provides a comparison between observed and predicted ( run 5d) wind speeds, wind direction, temperature, and humidity in the San Antonio   Austin region during the September 1999 episode. As shown, there was a high degree of correlation between observed and predicted values for these four meteorological variables. B 6 Figure B 2. Observed ( black) and Predicted ( red) Values for Run 5d for San Antonio/ Austin Region METEOROLOGICAL RUN 6f The ENVIRON/ UT CEER team also developed a series of meteorological runs which took advantage of new / additional input data from EPA as well as the expanded capabilities of MM5 version 3.5. Improvements within version 3.5 included improvements within known deficiencies and to access additional modeling capabilities. These modifications included:

1. The same four domain nested mesh with 108/ 36/ 12/ 4 km resolution, but with an expanded 36 km grid in order to move possible 108/ 36 boundary artifacts away from the area of interest and to better simulate the dominant regional scale Observed/ Predicted Windspeed 0 2 4 6 9/ 13 9/ 14 9/ 15 9/ 16 9/ 17 9/ 18 9/ 19 9/ 20 m/ s ObsWndSpd PrdWndSpd Observed/ Predicted Wind Direction 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 9/ 13 9/ 14 9/ 15 9/ 16 9/ 17 9/ 18 9/ 19 9/ 20 deg ObsWndDir PrdWndDir Observed/ Predicted Temperature 290 295 300 305 310 9/ 13 9/ 14 9/ 15 9/ 16 9/ 17 9/ 18 9/ 19 9/ 20 K ObsTemp PrdTemp Predicted/ Observed Humidity 0 5 10 15 20 25 9/ 13 9/ 14 9/ 15 9/ 16 9/ 17 9/ 18 9/ 19 9/ 20 g/ kg ObsHum PrdHum B 7 meteorology over the entire central U. S. that dictated flow and pressure patterns in Texas during the episode.

2. The coupled Pleim Xiu Land Surface Model and boundary layer model, which required additional datasets such as soil type, vegetation categories, deep soil temperature, and vegetation fraction archived at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

3. Three hourly observational " analysis" fields from the Eta Data Assimilation System, ( EDAS) as opposed to EDAS " initialization" data used in previous modeling to establish initial/ boundary conditions and inputs to the MM5 Four Dimensional Data Assimilation ( FDDA) package.

4. Incorporation of routine surface and upper air observation data obtained from NCAR archives into the EDAS fields processed for each MM5 modeling grid. This modification was made to ensure that the mesoscale and local meteorological features in the south central U. S. were faithfully characterized in the EDAS analysis dataset. This preprocessing step was skipped in the original application because it was believed that the relatively high spatial and temporal resolution of the EDAS fields was sufficient to capture these details.

5. Use of the RRTM radiation scheme for all grids, based on the favorable results from the sensitivity tests.

6. Use of two way interactive nesting for all grids. The 4 km grid was run as an independent one way nest in the original application.

7. Modifications to the FDDA nudging technique to include two dimensional surface analysis nudging, altered nudging strengths, and recommendations of Dr. Nelson Seaman at the Pennsylvania State University. The TCOON and NOAA buoy data were also added to the observation FDDA nudging inputs.

These capabilities were not available in version 3.4 of MM5 used to develop the original 1999 simulation, nor were they addressed in runs 5a   5i. The new runs, labeled 6c   6f, were each modified to reflect different parameters applied to each run.

Runs 5a   5i contained a 36   km grid system that was arranged in 55 X 55 grid cells. The " run 6" series used an expanded 36 km grid system that covered 85 X 61 grid cells. All nested grids within the 108, 36, 12, and 4 km grid system, were run in two way interactive mode. 5 In contrast, the run 5 series incorporated one way interaction6 on the 4 km grid, with 2 way interaction on other nested grids. All " 6 series" runs were conducted with 28 vertical layers, since the run 5 series results indicated this resolution performed best.

5 Finer resolution grids are nested inside of coarser resolution grids. The information for the outermost grid is supplied from an outside source using one way interaction. The coarse grids provide boundary conditions on the mesh interfaces between coarse/ fine grids. Forecast variables developed in the fine grids are used to update the coarse grids that they cover, resulting in two way interaction since information flows from coarse to fine grid as well as from fine grid to coarse grid. 6 In one way interaction, information flows in one direction: from the coarser grid system to the finer grid system. Computations within the fine model do not affect the larger grid system. B 8 Cloud options remained consistent with runs 4 and 5, which mainly consisted of treating cloud microphysics with the " simple ice" mechanism.

The run 6 series also varied by the grids in which the settings were modified. For example, the sole difference between runs 6c and 6e was that 6e included initial / boundary condition modifications applied to all grids, whereas these modifications were only applied to the three largest grids in 6c.

ENVIRON/ UT also employed a Land Surface Model to improve handling of surfaceatmospheric interactions for the run 6 series. The more sophisticated Land Surface Models ( LSMs) would provide advantages for mesoscale modeling than did the simple " five layer" soil model. Surface atmosphere processes affect the magnitude and direction of sensible and latent heat transfer which then defines boundary layer development, surface temperature, and humidity which are important for successful air pollution modeling. The Pleim Xiu approach was reputable for outstanding results in air quality planning in other parts of the county therefore was utilized in correlation with the MM5 application.

In addition, the modeling team incorporated supplemental data sets, such as soil type, vegetation categories, and deep soil temperature. The following information describes the revised MM5 applications.

Table B 2. Summary of Revised MM5 Applications Run ID Configuration Run 6c Includes 2 D surface nudging toward wind, temperature, and humidity analyses, and soil moisture nudging toward surface humidity Run 6d Identical to Run 6c, except soil moisture nudging was turned off Run 6e Identical to Run 6c, except 2 D analysis and soil moisture nudging was applied to the 4 km domain Run 6f Identical to Run 6e, except with additional surface observations from TCOON and NBDC buoy sites in the observation nudging database.

Diurnal Temperatures The diurnal temperature range was suppressed, resulting in cooler afternoon maxima and warmer morning minima. In run 6d, temperatures improved significantly when the soil moisture nudging was turned off yet still produced worse results than in run 4c. Run 6e had comparable diurnal temperatures to the 4c original run.

Wind Speed Wind speed trends in run 6c were much better simulated than in the 4c original run. The speeds were stronger in the afternoon and lighter at night. The first four days of the simulation had wind speeds that were overpredicted. However, wind speeds during September 17th through September 20th corresponded well to the observed wind speeds. Run 6d resulted in stronger wind speeds. Run 6e predicted wind speeds and direction which were compatible to observed levels. B 9 Weather Patterns Diurnal trends of moisture were not predicted well in run 6c as compared to the run 4c. Run 6d had poor moisture performance on all modeling days. Humidity in run 6e was generally higher than the other runs but most closely matched observed values.

Evaluation of the Best Performing Simulation The final run, 6f, incorporated additional surface observation data from the Texas Coastal Ocean Observation Network and the National Buoy Data Center. Of this series, run 6f was considered the best performing simulation. Run 6f predicted temperature and humidity more accurately than 5d and demonstrated improved wind speed and wind direction when compared to the original 1999 simulation. However, the improved wind statistics for 6f were inferior to the improvements demonstrated by 5d. Furthermore, the boundary layer patterns from 6f were considered questionable. ( ENVIRON, 2003) This is shown graphically in figure B 3, which compares the mixing height between the original model, 5d, and 6f. The graph for 6f displays an area of suppressed mixing that appears to track a swath of sandy soil from southern San Antonio to Bryan, Texas. According to ENVIRON, this indicates the run 6f configuration was excessively sensitive to sandy soil. B 10 Figure B 3. Comparison of the Mixing Height Between the Original Model ( Run 4c), 5d, and 6f B 11 FINAL MM5 CONFIGURATION Overall, the ENVIRON/ UT CEER team considered run 5d to outperform all other 5 and 6 series runs. Their conclusions were based on measurements as to how accurately the runs simulated observed conditions as well as other performance statistics. These performance results are shown in figures B 4 through B 7. Figure B 4 provides a comparison of observed wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and humidity with values predicted by the original meteorological model, run 5d, and 6f. Figures B 5 through B 7 provide statistical measures of performance for wind speed / direction, temperature and humidity, respectively.

Figure B 4. Comparison of Wind Speed and Direction, Temperature, Humidity Statistics for Original Meteorological Model Run ( black), 5d ( red), and 6f ( blue) for San Antonio   Austin B 12 Figure B 5. Wind Statistics for Original Meteorological Model Run ( black), 5d ( red), and 6f ( blue) for San Antonio   Austin Region B 13 Figure B 6. Temperature Statistics for Meteorological Model Run ( black), 5d ( red), and 6f ( blue) for San Antonio   Austin Region B 14 Figure B 7. Humidity Statistics for Original Meteorological Model Run ( black), 5d ( red), and 6f ( blue) for San Antonio   Austin Region B 15 METEOROLOGICAL RUN 5g The ENVIRON/ UT CEER team undertook one additional run to merge the best configurations of the 5 and 6 series runs. The team recommended that the MM5 Run 5d set of meteorological fields for the photochemical model be used in combination with important FDDA and input database changes adopted in MM5 Run 6f, but the MRF PBL scheme and five layer soil model of Run 5d be maintained. This configuration included:   28 sigma levels   Expanded 36 km domain used in Run 6f   Two way interactive 108/ 36/ 12/ 4 km grids   FDDA analysis nudging on the 108/ 36/ 12 km grids:  3 D analysis nudging: MM5 was lightly nudged toward 3 hourly gridded EDAS analysis of winds ( in the boundary layer and aloft) and temperature and humidity ( only above the boundary layer), which were improved by the blending of routine surface and upper air observational data  2 D surface analysis nudging: MM5 was lightly nudged toward 3 hourly gridded surface analyses of winds, temperature, and humidity generated by the RAWINS program.   Observation nudging on the 12/ 4 km grids: MM5 was strongly nudged toward discrete hourly wind observations from routine and special measurement networks operating in Texas during the episode.   MRF PBL   Simple ice cloud microphysics   Kain Fritsch cumulus parameterization except on 4 km grid   Five layer soil model   RRTM radiation scheme   Reduced soil moisture and thermal inertia to account for drier conditions The results of run 5d and 5g are very comparable; for example, both runs predicted similar PBL heights. However, there were strengths / weaknesses found in both models. Run 5g out performed 5d in terms of predicting temperature and humidity. Conversely, run 5d out performed 5g in terms of wind speed and ground level wind direction. Run 5g wind speed and direction predictions for Central Texas during the first half of the episode were slightly degraded compared to Run 5d; however, along the coast, Run 5g showed enhanced onshore afternoon flow that was in better agreement with observations. Figures B 8 through B 11 provide comparisons of wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and humidity, between observed values and values predicted by runs 5d and 5g. B 16 Figure B 8. Hourly Wind Speed for Runs 5d and 5g in the 4 km San Antonio Area Domain Figure B 9. Hourly Temperature for Runs 5d and 5g in the 4 km San Antonio Area Domain. B 17 Figure B 10. Hourly Wind Direction for Runs 5d and 5g in the 4 km San Antonio Area Domain Figure B 11. Hourly Humidity for Runs 5d and 5g in the 4 km San Antonio Area Domain.

Since the results of the 5d and 5g wind speed/ direction, temperature, and humidity comparisons were inconclusive in terms of which one was the superior meteorological B 18 run, additional analyses were conducted. These included running the two meteorological simulations through the CAMx photochemical model to determine the impact each run had on predicting ozone levels; and further, comparing the photochemical results to the Baylor aircraft sampling data for the time and altitude of the flights. The two photochemical runs, labeled run 14 ( using the 5d meteorological run) and run 16 ( using the 5g meteorological run) were identical with the exception of the meteorological inputs.

A problem that was significant in the San Antonio area was aloft wind direction. While the model performed well in replicating peak ozone aloft in the urban plumes with the original Met 3b run for the 17th and 18th, the spatial distribution was poor, indicating a problem with wind direction at those altitudes. The data collected from the Baylor aircraft flights were compared to predictions from the 1999 model simulation for the same days for Met Run 5d and 5g. Figure B 12 provides a comparison between the aircraft data collected by Baylor University and ozone levels predicted by the model for the correct time period and altitude of the flights. As shown in the figure, the peak ozone plumes predicted by the model are vastly improved. B 19 Figure B 12. Comparison of Ozone Levels Measured during Baylor University Airborne Sampling Project on September 17th with Ozone Levels Predicted by Met 5d and 5g Model Simulation for Time of Day and Altitude of Flights. ( Dotted line represents collected ozone data in parts per billion ( ppb).)

CAMx Run with Met 5d CAMx Run with Met 5g B 20 STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF MM5 RUN 5g The University of Texas at Austin provided the following information regarding the statistical evaluation of the MM5 model performance. Winds, temperature, and humidity were quantitatively assessed to analyze MM5 performance at all available surface observation stations across the 4 km domain. The METSTAT program developed by ENVIRON ( 2001) was utilized for the evaluation. The METSTAT program generates pairing of observations and predictions and calculates statistical measures for wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and humidity. The following statistical metrics were examined:

  Bias error   mean difference between pairings of predicted and observed data over a region.   Gross error   mean absolute value of difference between pairings of predicted and observed data over a region.   Root Mean Square Error ( RMSE)   the square root of the mean of the squared difference between pairings of predicted and observed data over a region.   Index of agreement ( IOA)   at each monitoring site, calculate the sum of the absolute value of the difference between the prediction and the mean of the observations and the absolute value of the difference between the observation and the mean of the observations. These sums are added over all monitoring sites and divided into the square of the RMSE. This value is then subtracted from one.

Performance goals for the above parameters were established from a comparison of statistical summaries of the results of nearly thirty regional meteorological model simulations used to drive photochemical models throughout the country. Performance goals were chosen to establish a level of performance that most past modeling has achieved and to filter out those applications that exhibit particularly poor performance. It should be stressed that these goals are guided by the results of meteorological models that have been accepted and used in support of historical regulatory photochemical air quality modeling efforts. The performance goals will require refinement as the state of the science of meteorological modeling improves.

Comparisons of mean daily statistics on the 4 km grid against the statistical benchmarks are summarized in table B 3 for the San Antonio/ Austin, Corpus Christi/ Victoria, and Houston/ Galveston sub domains. The importance of the various meteorological input fields on CAMx air quality modeling can be ranked as follows ( in descending order):

1. Surface and vertical profiles of wind speed/ direction; 2. Boundary layer mixing depth and intensity; 3. Temperature ( primarily the extent to which it influences boundary layer characterization, but secondarily, the extent to which it affects chemical reaction rates); 4. Humidity and clouds ( assuming cloud cover was insignificant, which was the case during this episode).

The table B 3 reveals that excellent performance for wind speed and direction and good performance for temperature and humidity was achieved by the Run 5g simulation on the 4 km domain. The reader is cautioned that these results are based on comparisons to observations obtained from ground level monitoring stations. Upper air observations B 21 in the 4 km domain were limited to two locations. Vertical profiles of observed wind, temperature, and humidity were available from the Corpus Christi National Weather Service rawinsonde station. Vertical profiles of boundary layer winds were available from a special air quality study ( Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational) profiler located in Llano, Texas. Run 5g and Run5d achieved the best performance at these two monitoring stations. 7 ( EMERY, C. A., et. al., 2003)

Table B 3. Comparison of Mean Daily Statistics Against Statistical Benchmark for the 4 km grid. 8 Episode Mean Parameter Benchmark Austin/ San Antonio Corpus Christi/ Victoria Houston/ Galveston/ Beaumont/ Port Arthur Wind Speed RMSE* < 2.0 m/ s 1.2 1.3 1.3 Wind Speed Bias ± 0.5 m/ s 0.0 0.5 0.4 Wind Speed IOA** > 0.60 0.68 0.81 0.63 Wind Direction Gross Error < 30 deg 36 23 30 Wind Direction Bias ± 10 deg  6  5 2 Temperature Gross Error < 2.0 K 2.1 1.3 1.5 Temperature Bias ± 0.5 K  1.3 0.4  0.6 Temperature IOA** > 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.95 Humidity Gross Error < 2.0 g/ kg 1.4 2.4 1.1 Humidity Bias ± 1.0 g/ kg  0.3  1.6  0.3 Humidity IOA** > 0.60 0.47 0.53 0.61 * RMSE: root mean square error ** IOA: index of agreement Processing of MM5 Meteorological Fields for CAMx Meteorological data from the Run5g simulation were used to generate the required three dimensional gridded meteorological fields shown in table B 4 for the September 13 20, 1999 CAMx model. The MM5 output fields were translated to CAMx ready inputs using ENVIRON's MM5CAMx translation software. This program performs several functions:

  Extracts wind, temperature, pressure, humidity, cloud, and rain fields from each MM5 grid that matches the corresponding CAMx grid;   Performs mass weighted vertical aggregation of data for CAMx layers that span multiple MM5 layers;   Diagnoses fields of vertical diffusion coefficient ( Kv), which are not directly output by MM5 ( Kv was diagnosed using the O'Brien 1970 method);

7 Emery, C. A., E. Tai, and G. McGaughey. 2003b. " Revised Meteorological Modeling of the September 13 20, 1999 Texas Ozone Episode   Final Report." Prepared for The Texas Joint Near Nonattainment Areas and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, by ENVIRON International Corporation, 101 Rowland Way, Novato, CA 94945 and the University of Texas at Austin, Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, 10100 Burnet Road, MS R7100, Austin, TX 78758. 31 March 2003 8 Value in red denotes statistics outside the benchmark. B 22 Table B 4. Meteorological Data Requirements for CAMx.

CAMx Input Parameter Description Layer interface height ( m) 3 D time varying layer heights for the start and end of each hour Winds ( m/ s) 3 D wind vectors ( u, v) for the start and end of each hour Temperature ( K) 3 D temperature and 2 D gridded surface temperature for the start and end of each hour Pressure ( mb) 3 D pressure for the start and end of each hour Vertical Diffusivity ( m^ 2/ s) 3 D vertical exchange coefficients for each hour Water Vapor ( ppm) 3 D water vapor mixing ratio for each hour Cloud Cover 3 D cloud cover for each hour Rainfall Rate ( in/ hr) 2 D rainfall rate for each hour The MM5CAMx program has been written to carefully preserve the consistency of the predicted wind, temperature, and pressure fields output by MM5. This is important for preparing mass consistent inputs, and consequently, for obtaining high quality performance from CAMx.

Most data prepared by MM5CAMx were directly input to CAMx. A single 40 meter deep CAMx surface layer was extracted from aggregation of the lowest two 20 meter MM5 layers. The structures for vertical layers for MM5 and CAMx are shown in table B 5. The CAMx vertical layer structure is consistent with recommendations described in the EPA's 8 hour modeling guidance ( EPA, 1999) which specifies that the surface layer should be no more than 50 meters deep, no layer beneath the mixing height should be greater than about 300 meters thick, 7 9 vertical layers with the planetary boundary layer and 1 2 layers above it. ( Emery, C. A., et. al., 2002)

The horizontal extent of the MM5 4 km domain was defined to be much larger than the CAMx 4 km domain ( the MM5 domain reached to the Texas Louisiana border). The differences in spatial extents of the domains could lead to inconsistencies in the flow and hydrodynamic fields just inside and along the eastern boundary of the CAMx 4 km grid and 12 km grids, if meteorological fields for the 12 km CAMx grid were derived only from the 12 km MM5 output. To ensure consistency for this portion of the CAMx grids, an alternative approach was designed. The 4 km meteorological output fields were extracted for the entire MM5 4 km grid coverage using MM5CAMx, averaged to 12 km resolution, then used to replace the meteorological fields on that portion of the CAMx 12 km grid. B 23 Table B 5. Vertical Layer Structure for MM5 and CAMx for Sept. 13 20, 1999 Episode An alternative set of vertical diffusivity input fields were developed for CAMx. Vertical diffusivities ( Kv) are important inputs to the CAMx model because they determine the rate and depth of mixing in the PBL and above. Original diffusivity fields derived by MM5CAMx were passed through an additional algorithm that sets minimum Kv values between layers 1 and 2 to ensure that nocturnal stability near the surface is not overstated The minimum value is tied to the land use ( e. g., urban, forest, agricultural, water, etc.) to represent different impacts of mechanical mixing and surface heat input ( e. g., urban heat island effect).

References:

Emery, C. A, E. Tai., G. M. Wilson, and G. Yarwood. 2002. " Development of a Joint CAMx Photochemical Modeling Episode for the Four Southern Texsa Near Non Attainment Area." Prepared for the Texas Near Non Attainment Areas through the Alamo Area Council of Governments, by ENVIRON International Corporation, 101 Rowland Way, Novato, CA 94945. 3 April 2002.

Emery, C. A., E. Tai, and G. McGaughey. 2003. " Revised Meteorological Modeling of the September 13 20, 1999 Texas Ozone Episode   Final Report." Prepared for The Texas Joint Near Nonattainment Areas and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, by ENVIRON International Corporation, 101 Rowland Way, Novato, CA 94945 and the University of Texas at Austin, Center for Energy and B 24 Environmental Resources, 10100 Burnet Road, MS R7100, Austin, TX 78758. 31 March 2003 ENVIRON, UT/ CEER 2003 presentation " Revised MM5 Modeling for the Texas Joint NNAs", slide 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), 1999. " Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8 Hour Ozone NAAQS. EPA 454/ R 99 004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1999.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

					 on the 13th day of August, 2002

________________________________________________

								 :

JOINT APPLICATION OF ALOHA AIRLINES, INC., 	 : Served: August 13, 2002

	 And							 :

HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.,				 :	Docket OST-

								 :           2002-13002

under Section 116 of the Aviation and Transportation	 :

Security Act of 2001 for Approval of and			 :

Antitrust Exemption for Agreement				 :

								 :

NOTICE

On July 31, 2002, Aloha Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines applied for
approval and antitrust immunity for an agreement whereby the two
airlines would coordinate capacity on five major routes within Hawaii.
They applied for approval and antitrust immunity under section 116 of
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, P.L. No. 107-71,
115 Stat. 624 (November 19, 2001), which authorizes the Secretary,
notwithstanding the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 41309(a), to approve and
grant antitrust immunity to an agreement governing air transportation
within a single state, if the Governor of the state has issued a
declaration that the agreement is necessary to ensure the continuing
availability of such air transportation within the state.  The Governor
of Hawaii has made such a declaration.

Any grant of approval and antitrust immunity would be made under 49
U.S.C. 41308 and 41309 under the standards set by section 116.  As
provided by our procedural rules for such applications, 14 C.F.R. Part
303, we have reviewed the application and determined that it is
substantially complete.  Answers would normally be due twenty-one days
from the date of adoption of this notice.  The statute, however,
requires that any decision approving and granting antitrust immunity be
made by October 1, 2002.  To enable us to fully consider any comments
and make our determination before this deadline, we will give commenters
fifteen days to file answers to the application.

While we have concluded that the application is substantially complete,
we reserve the right to require the filing of any additional information
deemed relevant to this proceeding at any time.

By:

						READ C. VAN DE WATER

						Assistant Secretary

					                 for Aviation and International Affairs

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at

http://dms.dot.gov/


[Federal Register: February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 6044-6045]
[DOCID:fr04fe09-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2008-1240]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0101, 1625-0102, and 1625-0103

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) and Analyses to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
requesting an extension of its approval for the following collections
of information: (1) 1625-0101, Periodic Gauging and Engineering
Analyses for Certain Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old; (2) 1625-0102,
National Response Resource Inventory; and (3) 1625-0103, Mandatory Ship
Reporting System for the Northeast and Southeast Coasts of the United
States. Before submitting these ICRs to OMB, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2008-
1240], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand deliver: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from
Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, (Attn: Mr. Arthur
Requina), 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal
information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2008-1240], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please
submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8-1/2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number for this Notice [USCG-2008-1240] in the
Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit the DMF in room
W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act statement regarding our

public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register
(73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain
Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0101.
    Summary: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 required the issuance of
regulations related to the structural integrity of tank vessels,
including periodic gauging of the plating thickness of tank vessels
over 30 years old. This collection of information is used to verify the
structural integrity of older tank vessels.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. section 3703 authorizes the Coast Guard to
prescribe regulations related to tank vessels, including design,
construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance. Title 46 CFR section
31.10-21a prescribes the regulations related to periodic gauging and
engineering analyses for certain tank vessels over 30 years old.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain tank vessels.
    Frequency: Every 5 years.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 13,688
hours to 9,918 hours a year.
    2. Title: National Response Resource Inventory.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0102.
    Summary: The information is needed to improve the effectiveness of
deploying response equipment in the event of an oil spill. It may also
be used in the development of contingency plans.
    Need: Section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-
380) requires the Coast Guard to compile and maintain a comprehensive
list of spill removal equipment. This collection helps fulfill that
requirement.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Oil spill removal organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 1,236
hours to 1,296 hours a year.
    3. Title: Mandatory Ship Reporting System for the Northeast and
Southeast Coasts of the United States.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0103.
    Summary: The information is needed to reduce the number of ship
collisions with endangered northern right whales. Coast Guard rules at
33 CFR part 169 establish two mandatory ship-reporting systems off the
northeast and southeast coasts of the United States.
    Need: The collection involves ships' reporting by radio to a shore-
based authority when entering the area covered by the reporting system.
The ship will receive, in return, information to reduce the likelihood
of collisions between themselves and northern right whales--an
endangered species--in the areas established with critical-habitat
designation.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Operators of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 226 hours
to 211 hours a year.

    Dated: January 21, 2009.
D.T. Glenn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E9-2313 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49968-49970]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0011]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation, Tennessee River 463.0 to 467.0;
Chattanooga, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing a special local regulated area
for all waters of the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 463.0
and ending at mile marker 467.0. This proposed regulated area is
necessary to provide safety for the approximately 2,500 swimmers that
will be participating in the ``Ironman Chattanooga'' on the Tennessee
River from mile marker 463.0 to mile marker 467.0. Entry into this area
will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Ohio Valley or designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Ashley Schad, MSD Nashville Nashville, TN,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl 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

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0011) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0011) 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.

3. Privacy Act

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

4. Public Meeting

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

B. Basis and Purpose

    The ``Ironman Chattanooga'' is a second year event being held on
September 27, 2015. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley has determined
that additional safety measures are necessary to protect race
participants, spectators, and waterway users during this event.
Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local
regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile
marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0. This proposed regulation
would provide safety for the approximately 2,500 swimmers that will be
racing in the ``Ironman Chattanooga.''
    The legal basis and authorities for this proposed rulemaking
establishing a special local regulation are found in 33 U.S.C. 1233,
which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local
regulations for regattas under 33 CFR 100.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is proposing a special local
regulated area for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile
marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0. Vessels or persons would
not be permitted to enter into, depart from, or move within this area
without permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or
designated representative. Persons or vessels requiring entry into or
passage through the proposed special local regulated area will be
required to request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio
Valley, or designated representative. They would be contacted on VHF-FM
Channel 13 or 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-
253-7465. This proposed rule would be enforced from 5:00 a.m. until
11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2015. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley
would inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the
enforcement period for the special local regulated area as well if any
changes in the planned schedule.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses,
not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated
and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
mile marker 463.0 to mile marker 467.0 on the Tennessee River, from
5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2015. This proposed special
local regulated area will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as it will be enforced for only
hours. Additionally, although the proposed special local regulated area
will apply to the entire width of the river, traffic will be allowed to
pass through the area with the permission of the Captain of the Port
Ohio Valley or designated representative.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley establishing a special
local regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at
mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0 to provide safety for
the approximately 2,500 swimmers that will be racing in the ``Ironman
Chattanooga.'' This rule is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A
preliminary 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 proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  100.35T08-0011 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T08-0011  Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River Mile
463.0 to 467.0, Chattanooga, TN.

    (a) Location of Regulated Area. All waters of the Tennessee River
beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 5:00 a.m.
to 11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2015. The Captain of the Port Ohio
Valley or a designated representative will inform the public through
broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement period for the special
local regulation.
    (c) Special Local Regulations. (1) The general regulations
contained in 33 CFR 100.35 as well as the regulations in this section
apply to the Regulated Area.
    (2) Entry into the Regulated Area is prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
Regulated Area must request permission from the Captain of the Port
Ohio Valley or a designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-
7465.
    (4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley and designated U.S. Coast Guard
patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include
commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: July 29, 2015.
R.V. Timme,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2015-20403 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P