[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6107-6110]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0051]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local
regulations for certain waters of the Choptank River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
located at Cambridge, MD, during a swim event on the morning of May 11,
2019. This proposed

rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite
your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0051 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The TCR Event Management of St. Michaels, MD, notified the Coast
Guard that it will be conducting the Maryland Freedom Swim on the
morning of May 11, 2019. The open water swim consists of approximately
250 participants competing on a designated 1.75-mile linear course. The
course starts at the beach of Bill Burton Fishing Pier State Park at
Trappe, MD, proceeds across the Choptank River along and between the
fishing piers and the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. Memorial (US-50)
Bridge, and finishes at the beach of the Dorchester County Visitors
Center at Cambridge, MD. Hazards from the swim competition include
participants swimming within and adjacent to the designated navigation
channel and interfering with vessels intending to operate within that
channel, as well as swimming within approaches to local public and
private marinas and public boat facilities. The Captain of the Port
(COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential
hazards associated with the swim would be a safety concern for anyone
intending to participate in this event or for vessels that operate
within specified waters of the Choptank River.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Choptank
River before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard
proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231, which
authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local
regulations.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish
special local regulations from 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. on May 11, 2019.
There is no alternate date planned for this event. The regulated area
would cover all navigable waters of the Choptank River, from shoreline
to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from
latitude 38[deg]35'14.2'' N, longitude 076[deg]02'33.0'' W, thence
south to latitude 38[deg]34'08.3'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'36.2'' W,
and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38[deg]35'32.7''
N, longitude 076[deg]02'58.3'' W, thence south to latitude
38[deg]34'24.7'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'01.3'' W, located at
Cambridge, MD. The regulated area is approximately 2,800 yards in
length and 900 yards in width.
    The proposed duration special local regulations and size of the
regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these
navigable waters before, during, and after the open water swim,
scheduled from 9 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. on May 11, 2019. The COTP and the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) would have authority to forbid
and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event
participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an
official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area would be
required to immediately comply with the directions given by the COTP or
PATCOM. If a person or vessel fails to follow such directions, the
Coast Guard may expel them from the area, issue them a citation for
failure to comply, or both.
    Except for Maryland Freedom Swim participants and vessels already
at berth, a vessel or person would be required to get permission from
the COTP or PATCOM before entering the regulated area. Vessel operators
can request permission to enter and transit through the regulated area
by contacting the PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic would be
able to safely transit the regulated area once the PATCOM deems it safe
to do so. A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a
participant or assigned as official patrols would be considered a
spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or PATCOM, a person or vessel
would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly through
the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to operate
at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated area.
Official patrol vessels will direct spectator vessels while within the
regulated area. Vessels would be prohibited from loitering within the
navigable channel. Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels
would be allowed to enter the race area.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. 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 and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, time of day
and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small
designated area of the Choptank River for 3 hours. The Coast Guard
would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel
traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the
PATCOM deems it safe to do so.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    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.
    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
section. 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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (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 implementation of regulations
within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the
navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the
safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area
lasting for 3 hours. Normally such actions are categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. 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.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.501T05-0051 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.501T05-0051  Special Local Regulation; Choptank River,
Cambridge, MD.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participants means all persons and vessels registered with the
event sponsor as participating in the Flying Point Park Outboard
Regatta or otherwise designated by the event sponsor as having a
function tied to the event.
    Spectators means all persons and vessels not registered with the
event sponsor as participants or assigned as official patrols.
    (b) Location. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (1) Regulated area. All navigable waters of the Choptank River,
from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a
line drawn from latitude 38[deg]35'14.2'' N, longitude
076[deg]02'33.0'' W, thence south to latitude 38[deg]34'08.3'' N,
longitude 076[deg]03'36.2'' W, and bounded on the west by a line drawn
from latitude 38[deg]35'32.7'' N, longitude 076[deg]02'58.3'' W, thence
south to latitude 38[deg]34'24.7'' N, longitude 076[deg]04'01.3'' W,
located at Cambridge, MD.
    (2) Reserved.
    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region or PATCOM may forbid and control the movement of all
vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated
area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person
in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions
given by the patrol. Failure to do so may result in the Coast Guard
expelling the person or vessel from the area, issuing a citation for
failure to comply, or both. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region
or PATCOM may terminate the event, or a participant's operations at any
time the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM believes it
necessary to do so for the protection of life or property.
    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person
or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this
section must immediately depart the regulated area.
    (3) A spectator must contact the PATCOM to request permission to
either enter or pass through the regulated area. The PATCOM, and
official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be contacted
on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A
(157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must pass directly
through the regulated area as instructed by PATCOM. A vessel within the
regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A
spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while
within the regulated area.
    (4) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor
within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM. A person or vessel seeking
such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region
at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date
and times.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
to 11 a.m. on May 11, 2019.

    Dated: February 19, 2019.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2019-03254 Filed 2-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30898-30901]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. OST-2011-0101]
RIN 2105-AE10

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise: Program Improvements for
Airport Concessions

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes conforming
amendments to the Department of Transportation's Airport Concessions
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) regulation, consistent with
recently issued amendments in the Department's regulation for the
disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program in highway, transit,
and airport financial assistance programs.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 26,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the agency name and
DOT Docket ID Number OST-2011-0101) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name (Office of the
Secretary, DOT) and Docket number (OST-2011-0101) for this notice at
the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail or courier. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov
including any personal information provided and will be available to
Internet users. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For Internet access to the docket to read background
documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E., Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Room
W94-302,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Wilbur Barham, Director
National Airport Civil Rights Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Room 1030,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 28, 2011, the Department
published a final rule establishing several program improvements to the
Department's DBE program rule (49 CFR part 26) for financial assistance
programs (76 FR 5083). This NPRM proposes conforming amendments to the
Department's companion rule for the ACDBE program (49 CFR part 23) for
several of the Part 26 amendments. The rationales for the proposed
conforming changes to Part 23 are very similar to

those for the parallel Part 26 changes, and we refer readers to the
preamble of the Part 26 final rule for information on the basis and
purpose of the proposed changes.
    We note that it is not necessary to propose conforming changes to
Part 23 parallel to all of the Part 26 changes. For example, it is not
necessary to include a Part 23 provision parallel to the change to
Sec.  26.11, concerning the frequency of reports, since existing Sec.
23.27(b) already states the appropriate reporting frequency for Part 23
reports.
    In addition, many of the Part 26 amendments apply automatically to
Part 23, because of sections in Part 23 that incorporate provisions of
Part 26. For example, existing Sec.  23.23 incorporates the provisions
of Sec.  26.31, regarding directories, so the changes to Sec.  26.31
apply in the Part 23 context without further amendment to Part 23.
Existing Sec.  23.31(a) states that, except where otherwise provided in
Part 23, the certification provisions of Sec. Sec.  26.61-26.91 apply
to Part 23. Consequently, the amendments to Sec. Sec.  26.71, 26.73,
26.81, 26.83, 26.84, and 26.85 automatically apply under Part 23 as
well as Part 26. Finally, the existing Sec.  23.25(e)(1)(iv) states
that the administrative procedures applicable to contract goals in
Sec. Sec.  26.51-26.53 apply with respect to concession specific goals,
so the amendment to Sec.  26.51 and the amendment to Sec.  26.53
automatically apply under Part 23 as well as Part 26.
    In the list that follows, we highlight the recent amendments to
Part 26 that apply automatically under Part 23. When these Part 26
sections apply under Part 23, the terms ``contractor'' or
``subcontractor'' are understood to mean ``concessionaire'' or
``subconcessionaire.''
     Section 26.31: This amendment, requiring that the DBE
directory include the list of each type of work for which a firm is
eligible to be certified, applies to the ACDBE program as well.
     Section 26.51: Applied in the ACDBE context, this
amendment directs recipients who originally set all race-neutral goals
to start setting race-conscious concession-specific goals if it
appeared that the race-neutral approach was not working.
     Section 26.53: As applied to ACDBEs, this amended section
sets forth the circumstances in which a prime concessionaire has good
cause to terminate an ACDBE firm.
     Section 26.71: Under this amended section, the types of
work an ACDBE firm can perform must be described in terms of the most
specific available NAICS code for that type of work.
     Section 26.73: This amended section provides that
certification of a firm may not be denied solely on the basis that it
is a newly formed firm, has not completed projects or contracts at the
time of its application, has not yet realized profits from its
activities, or has not demonstrated a potential for success.
     Section 26.81: The requirements for Unified Certification
Programs (UCPs) were amended to require the UCP to revise the print
version of the Directory at least once a year.
     Section 26.83: The amended procedures for making
certification decisions apply in the ACDBE context. The amendments
include a new subsection that addresses the procedure for a
certification decision involving an application that was withdrawn and
then resubmitted.
     Section 26.84: This section was removed in the recently
issued Part 26 final rule.
     Section 26.85: This section has been removed and replaced
with a section describing the process of interstate certification for a
DBE firm. This includes the information the applicant must provide to
the other state (``State B''), what actions State B must take when it
receives an application, and appropriate reasons for making a
determination that there is good cause to believe that the home
state's, State A, certification of the firm is erroneous or should not
apply in State B.
    Even though the Part 26 amendments listed above apply automatically
to Part 23, it is important that these new Part 26 changes make sense
in the ACDBE context. Therefore, the Department seeks comments on
whether there are terms or concepts in these recently issued Part 26
amendments that need to be modified to conform to the Part 23 context.
    Amended Sec.  26.39, concerning fostering small business
participation, is focused on Federally-assisted contracting and
associated issues such as ``unbundling.'' For this reason, the
Department is not proposing at this time to include parallel provisions
in Part 23, though we seek comments on whether additional small-
business-related provisions are needed in the concessions context. The
changes to Sec.  26.45, concerning project goals, likewise apply only
to DOT-assisted contracting, not concessions.
    In Sec.  23.35, the Department would substitute $1.32 million for
the current $750,000 as the personal net worth (PNW) standard. This
parallels the revision of Sec.  26.67, and is being proposed for the
same reasons. The Part 23 PNW provision has been separate from the Part
26 PNW provision, so a specific Part 23 amendment is needed to maintain
consistency between the two regulations.
    The Part 26 PNW definition differs from the Part 23 PNW definition
in that Part 23 includes an exemption for ``other assets that the
individual can document are necessary to obtain financing or a
franchise agreement for the initiation or expansion of his or her ACDBE
firm (or have in fact been encumbered to support existing financing for
the individual's ACDBE business), to a maximum of $3 million.'' Some
background regarding the $3 million (maximum) exemption for ``other
assets * * *'' can be found in the preamble to 49 CFR Part 23, issued
March 22, 2005.
    In determining whether to include the $3 million exclusion, the
Department noted that one PNW standard for Part 23 and Part 26 would
``* * * avoid concerns about overinclusiveness in the program by
ensuring that persons who would fairly be perceived as too wealthy for
a program aimed at assisting `disadvantaged' individuals do not
participate''. The Department countered ``[a]t the same time, the
Department is sensitive to the concern of commenters that a PNW
standard at this level [$750,000] could inhibit opportunities for
business owners to enter the concessions field and expand existing
businesses,'' and it also said that ``[i]n the different business
context of concessions, the Department will add a third exclusion.''
    The Department recognized in the preamble that ``[w]ithout unduly
expanding the well-accepted $750,000 standard, this approach will take
into account individual circumstances and avoid the `glass ceiling'
effect of an across-the-board PNW standard about which commenters were
concerned'' and ``prevent the eligibility standards from becoming too
open-ended, resulting in the participation of individuals so wealthy
that it would be difficult to justify their inclusion in a program
aimed at disadvantaged individuals, we are adding a $3 million cap on
this third exclusion * * *''
    The Department is aware that the $3 million exemption from PNW for
assets used as collateral for a loan has been difficult to implement.
For example, issues arise in applying the exemption when part of the
loan has been paid down. Also, there has been inconsistent
interpretation as to the necessary documentation to support this
exemption. The Department seeks comment on whether this exemption
should be retained in the definition of PNW, deleted altogether,
modified, or

replaced with a different but more workable provision aimed to achieve
the same objective. We would also like comments on how to improve the
definition of this exemption so if retained, the exemption can be
implemented more effectively.
    In Sec.  23.29, we propose to adopt the key change we made to Sec.
26.37 concerning enhanced monitoring of the actual performance of work
by DBEs or ACDBEs. Airports would be responsible for reviewing
documents and actual on-site performance to ensure that ACDBEs were
actually performing the work committed to them during the concession
award process.
    This NPRM would revise Sec.  23.57 to make its accountability
provisions parallel to those of the recently amended Sec.  26.47(c).
Again, the rationale for doing so is the same as for Part 26. The
Department seeks comment on whether any further modifications of the
language of this provision would be useful for purposes of the ACDBE
program.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This is a non-significant regulation for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. The proposals involve administrative modifications to
several provisions of a long-existing and well-established program,
designed to improve the program's implementation. The proposals, if
made final, would not alter the direction of the program, make major
policy changes, or impose significant new costs or burdens.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A number of provisions of the NPRM would reduce small business
burdens or increase opportunities for small business. The personal net
worth change would allow some small businesses to remain in the ACDBE
program for a longer period of time. Small recipients would not be
required to prepare or transmit reports concerning the reasons for
overall goal shortfalls and corrective action steps to be taken. Only
the 30-50 airports receiving the greatest amount of FAA financial
assistance or enplaning the greatest number of passengers would have to
file these reports. The NPRM would not make major policy changes that
would cause recipients to expend significant resources on program
modifications. For these reasons, the Department certifies that the
NPRM, if made final, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under the Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism, since it merely makes administrative modifications to
an existing program. It does not change the relationship between the
Department and State or local governments, pre-empt State law, or
impose substantial direct compliance costs on those governments.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DOT has
submitted the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) below to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides whether to
approve these proposed collections of information and issue a control
number, the public must be provided 30 days to comment. Organizations
and individuals desiring to submit comments on the collections of
information in this rule should direct them to the Office of Management
and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
collection of information requirements contained in this rule between
30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
    We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this rule. The Department will not
impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection
requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if
required. The Department intends to obtain current OMB control numbers
for the new information collection requirements resulting from this
rulemaking action. The OMB control number, when assigned, will be
announced by separate notice in the Federal Register.
    It is estimated that the total incremental annual burden for the
information collection requirements in this rule is 13,855 hours.
    The following are the information collection requirements in this
rule:

Certification of Monitoring (49 CFR 23.29)

    Each recipient would certify that it had conducted post-award
monitoring of contracts that would be counted for ACDBE credit to
ensure that ACDBEs had done the work for which credit was claimed. The
certification is for the purpose of ensuring accountability for
monitoring which the regulation already requires.
    Respondents: 184 (i.e., airports with covered concessions).
    Frequency: 1,071 non-car rental concessions; 449 car rental
concessions, for a total of 1520, or an average of 8.2 concessions per
airport.
    Estimated Burden per Response: \1/2\ hour.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,230 hours.

Accountability Mechanism (49 CFR 23.57)

    If a recipient failed to meet its overall goal in a given year, it
would have to determine the reasons for its failure and establish
corrective steps. Of the 184 airports covered by this rule, 35 large
recipients would transmit this analysis to DOT; smaller recipients
would perform the analysis but would not be required to submit it to
DOT. We estimate that about half of recipients (92) would be subject to
this requirement in a given year.
    Respondents: 92.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 80 hours + 5 additional
hours for recipients sending report to DOT.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7535 (i.e., 7,360 [92 x 80] +
175 [35 x 5]).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 23

    Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights,
Government contracts, Grant programs--transportation, Minority
businesses, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    Issued this 4th day of May 2011, at Washington DC.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation proposes to amend 49 CFR part 23 as follows:

PART 23--PARTICIPATION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IN
AIRPORT CONCESSIONS

    1. The authority citation for Part 23 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 47107; 42 U.S.C. 2000d; 49 U.S.C. 322;
Executive Order 12138.
    2. Revise Sec.  23.29 to read as follows:

Sec.  23.29  What monitoring and compliance procedures must recipients
follow?

    As a recipient, you must implement appropriate mechanisms to ensure
compliance with the requirements of this part by all participants in
the program. You must include in your concession program the specific
provisions to be inserted into concession agreements and management
contracts, the enforcement mechanisms, and other means you use to
ensure compliance. These provisions must include a monitoring and
enforcement mechanism to verify that the work committed to ACDBEs is
actually performed by the ACDBEs. This mechanism must include a written
certification that you have reviewed records of all contracts, leases,
joint venture agreements, or other concession-related agreements and
monitored the work on-site in your State for this purpose. The
monitoring to which this paragraph refers may be conducted in
conjunction with monitoring of contract performance for other purposes
(e.g., closeout reviews for a contract).
    3. In Sec.  23.35, remove the number ``$750,000'' and add in its
place ``$1.32 million.''
    4. Revise Sec.  23.45(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  23.45  What are the requirements for submitting overall goal
information to FAA?

* * * * *
    (i) If a new concession opportunity, the estimated average annual
gross revenues of which are anticipated to be $200,000 or greater,
arises at a time that falls between normal submission dates for overall
goals, you must submit an appropriate adjustment to your overall goal
to the FAA for approval at least six months before executing the
concession agreement for the new concession opportunity.
    5. Revise Sec.  23.57(b) and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  23.57  What happens if a recipient falls short of meeting its
overall goals?

* * * * *
    (b) If the awards and commitments shown on your Uniform Report of
ACDBE Participation (found in Appendix A to this Part) at the end of
any fiscal year are less than the overall goal applicable to that
fiscal year, you must do the following in order to be regarded by the
Department as implementing your ACDBE program in good faith:
    (1) Analyze in detail the reasons for the difference between the
overall goal and your awards and commitments in that fiscal year;
    (2) Establish specific steps and milestones to correct the problems
you have identified in your analysis and to enable you to meet fully
your goal for the new fiscal year;
    (3)(i) If you are an Operational Evolution Partnership Plan airport
or other airport designated by the FAA, you must submit, within 90 days
of the end of the fiscal year, the analysis and corrective actions
developed under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to the FAA
for approval. If the FAA approves the report, you will be regarded as
complying with the requirements of this section for the remainder of
the fiscal year.
    (ii) As an airport not meeting the criteria of paragraph (b)(3)(i)
of this section, you must retain analysis and corrective actions in
your records for three years and make it available to the FAA, on
request, for their review.
    (4) The FAA may impose conditions on the recipient as part of its
approval of the recipient's analysis and corrective actions including,
but not limited to, modifications to your overall goal methodology,
changes in your race-conscious/race-neutral split, or the introduction
of additional race-neutral or race-conscious measures.
    (5) You may be regarded as being in noncompliance with this Part,
and therefore subject to the remedies in Sec.  23.11 of this part and
other applicable regulations, for failing to implement your DBE program
in good faith if any of the following things occur:
    (i) You do not submit your analysis and corrective actions to FAA
in a timely manner as required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section;
    (ii) FAA disapproves your analysis or corrective actions; or
    (iii) You do not fully implement the corrective actions to which
you have committed or conditions that FAA has imposed following review
of your analysis and corrective actions.
    (c) If information coming to the attention of FAA demonstrates that
current trends make it unlikely that you, as an airport, will achieve
ACDBE awards and commitments that would be necessary to allow you to
meet your overall goal at the end of the fiscal year, FAA may require
you to make further good faith efforts, such as modifying your race-
conscious/race-neutral split or introducing additional race-neutral or
race-conscious measures for the remainder of the fiscal year.

[FR Doc. 2011-13187 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38336-38337]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15721]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 17Ab2-1, Form CA-1; SEC File No. 270-203, OMB Control No.
3235-0195.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
17Ab2-1 (17 CFR 240.17Ab2-1) and Form CA-1: Registration of Clearing
Agencies (17 CFR 249b.200) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17Ab2-1 and Form CA-1 require clearing agencies to register
with the Commission and to meet certain requirements with regard to,
among other things, the clearing agency's organization, capacities, and
rules. The information is collected from the clearing agency upon the
initial application for registration on Form CA-1. Thereafter,
information is collected by amendment to the initial Form CA-1 when
material changes in circumstances necessitate modification of the
information previously provided to the Commission.
    The Commission uses the information disclosed on Form CA-1 to (i)
determine whether an applicant meets the standards for registration set
forth in Section 17A of the Exchange Act, (ii) enforce compliance with
the Exchange Act's registration requirement, and (iii) provide
information about specific registered clearing agencies for compliance
and investigatory purposes. Without Rule 17Ab2-1, the Commission could
not perform these duties as statutorily required.
    The Commission staff estimates that each initial Form CA-1 requires
approximately 130 hours to complete

and submit for approval. This burden is composed primarily of a one-
time reporting burden that reflects the applicant's staff time (i.e.
internal labor costs) to prepare and submit the Form to the Commission.
Hours required for amendments to Form CA-1 that must be submitted to
the Commission in connection with material changes to the initial CA-1
can vary, depending upon the nature and extent of the amendment. Since
the Commission only receives an average of one submission per year, the
aggregate annual burden associated with compliance with Rule 17Ab2-1
and Form CA-1 is 130 hours. The main cost to respondents is associated
with generating, maintaining, and providing the information sought by
Form CA-1. The external costs associated with such activities include
fees charged by outside lawyers and accountants to assist the
registrant collect and prepare the information sought by the form
(though such consultations are not required by the Commission) and are
estimated to be approximately $19,029. The rule and form do not involve
the collection of confidential information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: June 30, 2014.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15721 Filed 7-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P