[Federal Register: August 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 42316-42317]
[DOCID:fr21au09-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0352]

Prescription Drug User Fee Act IV Information Technology
Assessment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In the last decade, the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) has
achieved great success in reforming and modernizing its regulatory
processes and responsibilities as a result of changes and improvements
driven by the requirements of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
(PDUFA), the 1997 FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA), and other legislation.
PDUFA was reauthorized by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007, Title I, Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2007
(PDUFA IV). FDA plans to make even greater progress during the PDUFA IV
timeframe (Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012), building on the foundation
established in previous years. The additional resources provided by
user fees, when combined with appropriations, have enabled the FDA to
modernize its information technology infrastructure and begin a
monumental transformation from a paper-based to an electronic work
environment.
    As part of the PDUFA IV commitment, FDA published the PDUFA IV
Information Technology (IT) Plan for comment to allow the public to
provide feedback as FDA moves towards a fully electronic standards-
based submission and review environment. FDA reviewed the comments,
updated the plan, and published the updated version in June 2008 (73 FR
36880; June 30, 2008).
    Under the PDUFA IV IT Plan an assessment of progress against the
plan is conducted on an annual basis. The most recent report, which is
available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa/, reflects the current
assessment of the PDUFA IV IT Plan. The report contains four columns.
The first three columns were previously published as part of the
original plan. The last column, labeled ``Current Status[rdquo,]
provides details of the activities for each project assessed. The next
assessment will be published in November 2009.
    More information on the PDUFA program is available at http://
www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa/.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the assessment at any
time. These comments will be considered as the agency makes annual
updates to the plan each fiscal year.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the IT
Assessment to the Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-080),
Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. Submit written comments on the IT Assessment
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
assessment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Kiang, Office of the Chief
Information Officer, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of the IT Assessment entitled
``Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) IV Information Technology
Assessment.'' This Assessment is intended to provide regulated industry
and other stakeholders with information on FDA's progress toward the
goals set out in the PDUFA IV IT Plan. As referenced in that plan
published in May 2008, Section 7.2, B. Communications and Technical
Interactions, 3.b., ``FDA will conduct an annual assessment of progress
against the IT plan and publish on the FDA Web site a summary of the
assessment within 2 months after the close of each fiscal year.''

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division
of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets
Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket
management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted
by FDA only through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov

    Dated: August 12, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-20083 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35248-35250]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15909]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81196; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Definition of Non-Public Arbitrator

July 24, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 10, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 12100 of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
FINRA Rule 13100 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry
Disputes (``Industry Code'' and together, ``Codes''), to define a non-
public arbitrator to mean a person who is otherwise qualified to serve
as an arbitrator, and is disqualified from service as a public
arbitrator under the Codes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose

    FINRA classifies arbitrators under the Codes as either ``non-
public'' or ``public.'' The Codes define these terms.\3\ The non-public
arbitrator definition lists affiliations that might qualify a person to
serve as a non-public arbitrator at the forum. Conversely, the public
arbitrator definition enumerates criteria that disqualify an applicant
from inclusion on the public arbitrator roster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See FINRA Rules 12100(r) and 13100(r) for the definition of
non-public arbitrator and Rules 12100(y) and 13100(x) for the
definition of public arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, the SEC approved amendments to the definitions of non-
public arbitrator and public arbitrator in the Codes.\4\ Among other
things, the amendments provided that persons who worked in the
financial industry for any duration during their careers would always
be classified as non-public arbitrators and the amendments added new
disqualifications to the public arbitrator definition relating to an
arbitrator's provision of services to parties in securities arbitration
and litigation and to revenues earned from the financial industry by an
arbitrator's co-workers. The amendments also broadened the
disqualifications based on the activities or affiliations of an
arbitrator's family members. The intent of the proposed rule change was
to address concerns about arbitrator neutrality raised by forum
users.\5\ For example, prior to the 2015 amendments, the Codes, with
specified exceptions, permitted former financial industry employees who
ended their industry affiliations to qualify as public arbitrators five
years after leaving the financial industry. Forum users raised concerns
about the neutrality of these individuals, and indicated that they did
not believe former industry employees should ever serve as public
arbitrators. In response to these concerns, the 2015 amendments
eliminated the five-year cooling-off period, thereby classifying all
former financial industry employees as non-public arbitrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 74383 (February 26,
2015), 80 FR 11695 (March 4, 2015).
    \5\ Regulatory Notice 15-18 (Definitions of Non-Public and
Public Arbitrator) describes the changes made to the arbitrator
definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the definitions as revised in 2015, the non-public arbitrator
roster is composed of individuals who work, or worked, in the financial
industry, or provide services to the financial industry or to parties
engaged in securities arbitration and litigation. The public arbitrator
roster is composed of individuals who do not have any significant
affiliation with the financial industry. These arbitrators have never
been employed by the industry, do not provide services to the industry
or to parties engaged in securities arbitration and litigation, and do
not have immediate family members or co-workers who do so.

Eligibility Gap

    The 2015 amendments to the arbitrator definitions created an
eligibility gap whereby certain otherwise qualified arbitrators \6\
could not serve in any capacity. The eligibility gap was created when
FINRA narrowed the public arbitrator definition as described above.
Over 800 public arbitrators were disqualified from the public
arbitrator roster under the revised public arbitrator definition. In
addition, more than 100 of these disqualified arbitrators did not meet
any of the criteria outlined in the non-public arbitrator definition
for service on the non-public arbitrator roster. As a result of this
eligibility gap, FINRA removed them from service at the forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Unless waived by FINRA at its discretion, arbitrator
applicants must have a minimum of five years of paid business and/or
professional experience and at least two years of college-level
credits. Qualification criteria can be found at http://www.finra.org/arbitration-and-mediation/finra-arbitrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In most instances, the basis for removal from the roster was an
affiliation relating to an arbitrator's family members or co-workers.
For example, a real estate attorney in a large law firm that has a
securities practice would be disqualified from service as a public
arbitrator if the firm derived $50,000 or more in a calendar year from
providing services to securities entities. In addition, employment as a
real estate attorney would not qualify the arbitrator to serve as a
non-public arbitrator under the current definition. Therefore, the
arbitrator falls into the eligibility gap. In addition to losing over
100 public arbitrators, the eligibility gap required FINRA to reject
over 140 arbitrator applicants in 2016 who met FINRA's minimum
arbitrator qualifications.

Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to amend the Codes to allow FINRA to appoint
individuals to the non-public arbitrator roster if they meet FINRA's
general arbitrator qualification criteria,\7\ but cannot be classified
as public arbitrators. FINRA would amend the non-public arbitrator
definition to delete the specific criteria for inclusion on the non-
public arbitrator roster. Instead, Rules 12100(r) and 13100(r) would
provide that the term ``non-public arbitrator'' means a person who is
otherwise qualified to serve as an arbitrator, and is disqualified from
service as a public arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, the proposed rule change would close the
eligibility gap, simplify the non-public arbitrator definition, and
provide greater choice for parties during the panel selection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. A key focus of the 2015
amendments was the elimination of certain individuals from the public
arbitrator roster. FINRA's intent was not to prevent these individuals
from serving in any capacity. Hundreds of arbitrators or arbitrator
applicants who formerly qualified to serve as public arbitrators are
now unable to serve as arbitrators in the forum. As a result, the pool
of eligible arbitrators has decreased, and FINRA is forced to turn away
new candidates who would have been eligible to serve but for the recent
amendments.
    The proposed rule change would permit these previously eligible
persons to serve as non-public arbitrators. While not changing the
public arbitrator definition as approved by the SEC in 2015, the
proposed rule change would expand the pool of candidates eligible to
serve as non-public arbitrators. FINRA considered revising the public
arbitrator definition to close the eligibility gap, but chose to
maintain the recently approved criteria that exclude individuals who
have any significant affiliation with the financial industry.
Increasing the number of qualified arbitrators benefits all parties who
come before the forum because it permits parties to consider additional
arbitrators during panel selection and may reduce

costs that arise due to an insufficient pool of qualified arbitrators
such as the costs associated with arbitrators traveling from other
hearing locations. Further, readmitting previously qualified persons
increases the pool of experienced arbitrators, which strengthens the
forum.
    The proposal would impose no direct or indirect costs on persons
previously eliminated from acting as arbitrators, new candidates for
arbitrator, or parties accessing the forum.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2017-025 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-025. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-025 and
should be submitted on or before August 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15909 Filed 7-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3647-3648]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1150]

Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). This Committee advises the
Coast Guard on matters relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal
waterway navigation and towing safety.

DATES: Completed application forms should reach us on or before March
7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Application forms are available for download on the Advisory
Committee's Web site at http://homeport.uscg.mil/tsac. Look for the
Application for Committee Membership ACM under ``General Information''.
You may also request an application form be e-mailed or sent to you by
writing to Commandant (CG-5222)/TSAC, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second
St., SW,, STOP 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126; calling<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Also a copy of the application form, as well as this notice, is
available in our online docket, USCG-2010-1150, at http://www.regulations.gov. Send your completed application to Michael J.
Harmon, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) at the street
address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Harmon, ADFO of Towing
Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 202-372-
1926; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC)
(``Committee'') is a Federal advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App.
(Pub. L. 92-463). It was established under authority of the Act to
establish a Towing Safety Advisory Committee in the Department of
Transportation, Public Law 96-380, which was most recently amended by
section 621 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, Public Law
111-281. The Committee advises the Secretary of Homeland Security on
matters relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway
navigation and towing safety. This advice also assists the Coast Guard
in formulating the position of the United States regarding the towing
industry in advance of International Maritime Organization meetings.
    The Committee meets at least twice a year either in the Washington
DC area or in cities with large towing centers of commerce and
populated by high concentrations of towing industry and related
businesses. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes. Subcommittees
and workgroups may conduct intercessional telephonic meetings when
necessary for specific tasking. The 18 members include:
    [cir] Seven members representing the Barge and Towing industry
(reflecting a regional geographical balance);
    [cir] One member representing the offshore mineral and oil supply
vessel industry;
    [cir] One member representing holders of active licensed Masters or
Pilots of towing vessels with experience on the Western Rivers and the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
    [cir] One member representing the holders of active licensed
Masters of towing vessels in offshore service.
    [cir] One member representing Masters who are active ship-docking
or harbor towing vessel.
    [cir] One member representing licensed or unlicensed towing vessel
engineers with formal training and experience.
    [cir] Two members each representing the following sectors:
     Port districts, port authorities or terminal operators;
     Shippers (of whom one must be engaged in the shipment of
oil or hazardous materials by barge);
    [cir] Two members representing the General Public.
    The Coast Guard is currently considering applications for eight
positions, four current positions that will become vacant on September
30, 2011 and four newly created active-credentialed positions,
resulting from amendments to the committee membership by section 621 of
the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act, Public Law 111-281:
     Two representatives from the Barge and Towing industry;
     One representative from port districts, port authorities
or terminal operators;
     One holder of an active license as Master or Pilot of
towing vessels with experience on the Western Rivers and the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway.
     One holder of an active license as Master of towing
vessels in offshore service.
     One active Master of a ship-docking or harbor towing
vessel.
     One licensed or unlicensed towing vessel engineer with
formal training and experience.
     One member from the General Public.
    To be eligible, applicants should have expertise, knowledge, and
experience relative to the position in the towing industry, marine
transportation, or business operations associated with shallow-draft
inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety. Registered
lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal advisory committees.
Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions

contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65, as
amended by Title II of Pub. L. 110-81). Each member serves for a term
of up to 3 years. Members may be considered to serve consecutive terms.
All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, or other
compensation from the Federal Government. The exception to this policy
is the possible reimbursement of travel expenses depending on fiscal
budgetary constraints.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethnic
diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups
to apply. The Coast Guard values diversity as an enhancement to all the
different characteristics and attributes that augment the Coast Guard
mission.
    If you are selected as a member who represents the general public,
you will be appointed and serve as a special Government employee (SGE)
as defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. As a
candidate for appointment as a SGE, applicants are required to complete
a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). A completed
OGE Form 450 is not releasable to the public except under an order
issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy
Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the Designated Agency Ethics Official or the
DAEO's designate may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure
Report.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, send a completed application to Michael J. Harmon, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) of TSAC at Commandant (CG-5222)/TSAC,
U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second St., SW., STOP 7126, Washington, DC
20593-7126. Send the application in time for it to be received by the
DFO on or before March 7, 2011. Please do not complete the political
affiliation portion of the application because all TSAC appointments
are made without regard to political affiliation. In addition to your
``HOME ADDRESS'', please include a valid e-mail address in that block.
In the ``TELEPHONE'' block please include a valid contact number. A
copy of the application form is available in the docket for this
notice. To visit our online docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2010-1150) in the Search
box, and click ``Go.''

    Dated: January 10, 2011.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-1068 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18436-18437]
[DOCID:fr04ap08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0343; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-21]

Revision of Class E Airspace; Anvik, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at Anvik, AK to provide
adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). Two new Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and a textual departure procedure (DP) are
being developed for the Anvik Airport. Additionally, one SIAP is being
amended. This action revises existing Class E airspace upward from 700
feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at Anvik Airport, Anvik, AK.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Friday, February 1, 2008, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise Class E
airspace upward from 700 ft. above the surface and from 1,200 ft. above
the surface at Anvik, AK (73 FR 6058). The action was proposed in order
to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft while
executing SIAPs for the Anvik Airport. Class E controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface and from 1,200 ft.
above the surface in the Anvik Airport area is revised by this action.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule is adopted as proposed.
    The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200
ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the
Anvik Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is revised to accommodate
aircraft executing new and amended SIAPs, and a new DP, and will be
depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended
effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Anvik Airport, Anvik,
Alaska.
    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. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the Anvik Airport and represents
the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable
airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Anvik, AK [Revised]

Anvik, Anvik Airport, AK
    (Lat. 62[deg]38'48'' N., long. 160[deg]11'26'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.0-mile radius of the Anvik Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of the Anvik Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on March 24, 2008.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E8-6933 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32275-32280]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0139]
RIN 1625-AA11

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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a regulated navigation area
(RNA) to prohibit all vessels from being within the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal (IHNC), Harvey Canal, and Algiers Canal during severe
hurricane conditions. Vessels will not be permitted to stay in the RNA
past 24 hours in advance of and through the storm passage, except those
vessels moored pursuant to mooring plans approved by the Captain of the
Port. Alternate routes exist for vessels to transit around or depart
from the RNA. This RNA is needed to protect the floodwalls, levees, and
adjacent communities within the IHNC, Harvey, and Algiers Canals from
potential hazards associated with vessels being in this area during a
hurricane.

DATES: This interim rule is effective in the CFR on June 8, 2010. This
rule is effective with actual notice for purposes of enforcement on May
21, 2010. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 8, 2010. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before June 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0139 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: 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.
    (4) Hand delivery: 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>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim
rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Marty Daniels, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov and will include

any personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0139), 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 (via http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, 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 e-mail 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:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, click on the ``submit a comment''
box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Document
Type'' drop down menu select ``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2009-
0139'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click ``Search'' then click on the
balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column. 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.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2009-0139'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 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. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

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).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before 10 days after date of publication in the
Federal Register, using one of the four 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.

Regulatory Information

    On 14 May, 2009 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Inner
Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA'' in the Federal Register (74
FR 22722). No public hearings were held. We received 7 comments on the
proposed rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. A 30 day delay would be contrary
to the public interest in avoiding floodwall or levee damage, and
resulting flooding, in the event of a hurricane or other storm surge.
The interim rule establishes a regulated navigation area that would be
enforced only in the relatively infrequent event of such conditions.
The hurricane season begins on June 1 of each year and a 30 day delay
would leave the New Orleans area unprotected by this RNA for the first
portion of the 2010 hurricane season.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this interim rule is the Coast Guard's
authority to establish regulated navigation areas under 33 CFR part 165
and the statutes and delegation cited therein. The purpose of this
interim rule is to establish an RNA to protect floodwalls and levees in
the New Orleans area from possible storm surge damage from moored
barges and vessels, and to avoid damaging flooding in the New Orleans
area that could result from any resulting damage to floodwalls and
levees. We request public comments on this interim rule and will amend
or rescind it if public comments indicate a need to do so. Moreover, we
intend to reevaluate the need for the RNA established by this interim
rule, upon completion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway Surge Barrier project and the West Closure
Complex project, both scheduled for completion by June 1, 2011.
    During Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, multiple barges and vessels
were moored next to or nearby floodwalls and levees surrounding the
City of New Orleans. During Hurricane Gustav, several vessels broke
free in the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal and nearly damaged the
Almonaster Street Bridge. If the storm surge had been higher, they
might have struck and damaged nearby floodwalls, re-creating the
flooding of New Orleans that followed Katrina. As a result, following
the 2008 hurricane season, the State of Louisiana requested that the
Coast Guard prohibit vessels from the IHNC, in New Orleans. Subsequent
to this request, the Coast Guard determined that certain regions in the
New Orleans area are at risk of flooding from vessels which might break
free during a storm and damage floodwalls and levees. This interim rule
attempts to respond to these perceived risks.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received 7 comments in response to our NPRM. Some of these were
received late but all late comments were reviewed and considered.
    One commenter expressed three concerns with the NPRM's proposed
RNA: (1) It could eliminate a safe haven for over 100 barges that
currently take refuge in the proposed restricted area during hurricane
conditions; (2) it did not adequately address waivers; and (3) it did
not address when it would terminate. The commenter also made two
requests of the Coast Guard: (1) To identify alternate locations for
vessels to moor during hurricanes to mitigate the risk from barges
breaking away and causing damage; and (2) to establish a Command Center
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and area stakeholders to
identify the locking priority of USACE equipment located in the RNA
before it takes effect.
    There are many other waterways throughout the Eighth District in
which vessels can travel and moor. The Coast Guard does not feel that a
specific safe

haven needs to be identified. The interim rule allows vessels applying
for a waiver to stay in the RNA pending approval of the waiver by the
Captain of the Port, New Orleans (COTP).
    With regard to termination of the RNA, the need for the RNA will be
reevaluated upon completion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
(USACE) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Surge Barrier and West Closure
Complex projects, which is anticipated by June 1, 2011. Since the
publication of the NPRM, the USACE equipment located in the RNA has
been reduced by 75% and the Coast Guard does not feel that a Command
Center is needed to address this issue any longer. We will continue to
cooperate with the maritime industry to ensure an efficient locking
process is in place based on Joint Hurricane Team Protocols.
    One commenter requested that the Algiers Canal be included in the
RNA due to the potential for flooding of the New Orleans west bank area
if a breakaway vessel caused a breach of the canal levees. The Coast
Guard agrees and has added the Algiers Canal, from the Algiers Lock to
the intersection of the Algiers Canal and the Harvey Canal, in this
interim rule.
    One commenter suggested that a contingency plan be developed for
vessels that are prevented from departing the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal, due to a bridge or lock malfunction, prior to experiencing
severe hurricane conditions. The Coast Guard agrees and this interim
rule provides ways to request a waiver from the COTP if a vessel is
prevented from departure due to a bridge or lock malfunction.
    One commenter conveyed that the Harvey and Algiers Canals have
traditionally been safe havens for vessels escaping the weather and
water fluctuations on the Mississippi River. Concern was also expressed
for the volume of equipment that would have to be evacuated from the
Harvey Canal. The Coast Guard understands that the Harvey and Algiers
Canals have been used as safe havens and considered this when drafting
this interim rule. The interim rule addresses this concern by allowing
vessels to stay in the RNA if they have mooring plans approved by the
COTP. Concerns regarding the evacuation of equipment are largely
resolved with the reduction of USACE construction equipment by 75%
since last year. Vessel and equipment congestion transiting through
these areas will continue to be tempered as time progresses.
Additionally, some congestion during evacuation will be relieved by the
interim rule's waiver options; vessels with waivers will not be
required to depart.
    One commenter was concerned about the lack of tugs and personnel
available to move equipment, the amount of time it would take to move
equipment, and the congestion that would result from moving equipment
out of the RNA. Additionally, the commenter was concerned about the
inclusion of the Algiers Canal in the RNA due to the protection it
affords vessels and equipment in the canal, and the vulnerability that
would be created for the equipment and vessels by requiring evacuation
of this area. The concerns regarding the equipment have been resolved
by the 75% reduction in construction traffic in the regulated areas
throughout the past year, and the Coast Guard believes that there will
be a significant number of vessels and facilities which could have
approved mooring plans. Therefore, with the reduced number of vessels
that would need to be evacuated, the Coast Guard feels that the
availability of tugs and personnel would be sufficient to move the
equipment remaining in the RNA in the given amount of time. The Coast
Guard notes the concern regarding inclusion of the Algiers Canal but
feels that it needs to be included as a RNA. Concerns regarding the
congestion that would result from moving equipment out of the RNA are
reduced with the lower level of construction activity and the
anticipated number of vessels with approved mooring plans.
    One commenter requested that the Coast Guard conduct outreach
efforts to provide companies with adequate notice about the rule. The
commenter also requested that the RNA be implemented as a temporary
measure to address the possibility of vessel breakaways until the new
West Closure Complex flood protection system is constructed just west
of the RNA. The concern regarding outreach has been addressed; the
Coast Guard has and will continue to conduct outreach efforts to
provide adequate notice for this rule. With the publication of this
interim rule, the public has a second opportunity to provide comments
on the RNA. The Coast Guard agrees with the reevaluation of the need
for the RNA upon the completion of the West Closure Complex. This
interim rule will be reevaluated upon completion of the USACE Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway Surge Barrier project and the West Closure
Complex project, both scheduled for completion by June 1, 2011.
    Jefferson Parish officials called a public meeting to learn more
about the issues after some of their constituents received COTP orders
informing them that they were not able to remain in their current
location in the event of a hurricane during the 2009 season. Vessel and
facility operators were ordered to immediately remove vessels and any
other objects that might break free and cause damage, in anticipation
of the imminent arrival of a hurricane. The COTP issued these orders as
a result of previous events that occurred during the landfall of
Hurricane Gustav, which made it clear to the COTP that preemptive
measures must be taken to prevent damage to or destruction of bridges,
floodwalls, and other structures on, in, or adjacent to the navigable
waters on the IHNC. The COTP attended this meeting on August 13, 2009.
A synopsis of this meeting can be found on the public docket. Based on
comments received from the public at the meeting, we included in this
interim rule the opportunity for vessels to request waivers to remain
in the RNA.

Discussion of Rule

    Under the interim rule, all vessels are prohibited from being
within the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, Harvey Canal, and Algiers
Canal during severe hurricane conditions. Those conditions include:
    (1) Predicted winds of 74 miles per hour (mph) or more and/or a
predicted storm surge of 8 feet or more for the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal;
    (2) Predicted winds of 111 mph or more and/or a predicted storm
surge of 10.5 feet or more for the Harvey and Algiers Canals through
post storm landfall, or other hurricane or tropical storm conditions as
determined by the Captain of the Port; or
    (3) Other hurricane or tropical storm conditions expected to
inflict significant damage to low lying and vulnerable shoreline areas,
as determined by the COTP through National Weather Service/Hurricane
Center weather predictions.
    The affected areas include:
    (1) The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal from Mile Marker 22 (West of
Chef Menteur Pass) on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, west through the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, out
to Lake Ponchartrain and to the Mississippi River in New Orleans, LA;
    (2) The Harvey Canal, between the Lapalco Boulevard Bridge and the
intersection of the Harvey Canal and the Algiers Canal; and
    (3) The Algiers Canal, from the Algiers Lock to the intersection of
the Algiers Canal and the Harvey Canal.
    Vessels will not be permitted to stay in these areas past 24 hours
in advance of and through the storm passage,

except with a mooring plan approved by the Captain of the Port. In the
event that a particularly dangerous storm is predicted to have winds
and/or storm surge which significantly exceeds the conditions outlined
above, the Captain of the Port could implement the provisions of this
regulated navigation area 72 hours in advance of the above stated
conditions.
    The surge levels of concern were determined to be at 8 feet for the
IHNC and 10.5 feet for the Algiers and Harvey Canals respectively
through collaboration between the U.S. Coast Guard, the National
Weather Service (NWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Currently, in the Harvey and Algiers Canals, a surge of 10.5 feet is
required for vessels to reach and cause damage to floodwalls and
levees. A surge of 8 feet is required to overtop portions of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway floodgate, which will be protecting the IHNC from
storm surge beginning in May 2010.
    The need for the RNA will be reevaluated upon completion of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Surge Barrier
project and the West Closure Complex. Both are scheduled to be
completed by June 1, 2011. The surge barriers are designed to reduce
the risk of storm damage to some of the area's most vulnerable areas--
New Orleans East, metro New Orleans, the 9th Ward, St. Bernard Parish,
Gretna, and Algiers. These projects aim to protect these areas from
storm surge coming from the Gulf of Mexico via adjacent bodies of
water. This interim rule provides the necessary measures to protect the
port infrastructure until these projects are completed. We intend to
reevaluate these measures at that time. Under the interim rule, the
COTP could impose measures, such as requirements for additional standby
vessels, in addition to the barge mooring regulations in 33 CFR
165.803. Transient vessels (such as vessels from Houma, Fourchon,
Lafitte, etc.) will only be permitted to seek safe haven in these areas
during a hurricane if they have a prearranged agreement with a facility
in the RNA, or a COTP-approved waiver for sheltering in place.
    Alternate routes exist for vessels to transit around or depart from
the areas affected by this interim rule.
    We do not anticipate that this interim rule would need to be
enforced very often. Historically, it would have been implemented only
three times over the past five year period: For Hurricanes Cindy,
Katrina, and Gustav.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This interim
rule intends to regulate only during specified time periods and based
on comments received and addressed and anticipated approved mooring
plans, this interim rule will not reach the level of a significant
regulatory action, requiring no assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this interim rule would 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 interim
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This interim rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the defined area
effective in advance implementation of the measures of this interim
rule. Small entities have the option of sheltering in place during
tropical cyclone activity by submitting, and having approved, a mooring
plan that explains how the small entity intends to ensure safe
conditions on the navigable waterways during a hurricane. In addition,
alternate routes for vessel traffic exist for transit around or
departure from the area before the Regulated Navigation Area goes into
effect.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this interim 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.

Collection of Information

    This interim rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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 interim rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this interim rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This interim 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.

Civil Justice Reform

    This interim 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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this interim rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This interim 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.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This interim 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this interim rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order 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.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This interim rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this interim 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 concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This interim rule involves establishing a regulated
navigation area in the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC), Harvey
Canal and Algiers Canal which is categorically excluded under figure 2-
1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is 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 interim rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703, 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

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

Sec.  165.838  Regulated Navigation Area; New Orleans Area of
Responsibility, New Orleans, LA

    (a) Regulated Navigation Area. The following is a regulated
navigation area (RNA):
    (1) The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) from Mile Marker 22
(west of Chef Menteur Pass) on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, west
through the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal, out to Lake Ponchartrain and to the Mississippi River in New
Orleans, LA;
    (2) The Harvey Canal, between the Lapalco Boulevard Bridge and the
intersection of the Harvey Canal and the Algiers Canal of the
Intracoastal Waterway; and
    (3) The Algiers Canal, from the Algiers Lock to the intersection of
the Algiers Canal and the Harvey Canal.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    COTP means the Captain of the Port, New Orleans; and
    Floating vessel means any floating vessel to which the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq., applies.
    (c) Enforcement. (1) The provisions of this paragraph (c) will be
enforced only 24 hours in advance of, and during the duration of, any
of the following predicted weather conditions:
    (i) Predicted winds of 74 miles per hour (mph) or more or a
predicted storm surge of 8 feet or more for the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal;
    (ii) Predicted winds of 111 mph or more and/or a predicted storm
surge of 10.5 feet or more for the Harvey or Algiers Canals through
post storm landfall, or other hurricane or tropical storm conditions as
determined by the COTP; or
    (iii) Other hurricane or tropical storm conditions expected to
inflict significant damage to low lying and vulnerable shoreline areas,
as determined by the COTP through National Weather Service/Hurricane
Center weather predictions.
    (2) In the event that a particularly dangerous storm is predicted
to have winds or storm surge significantly exceeding the conditions
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii) of this section,
the COTP may begin enforcement 72 hours in advance of the predicted
conditions.
    (3) During enforcement:
    (i) All floating vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining
in the RNA except pending approval of a waiver request made in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section or as authorized by a
waiver approved by the COTP in accordance with paragraph (d);
    (ii) Transient vessels will not be permitted to seek safe haven in
the RNA except in accordance with a prearranged agreement between the
vessel and a facility within the RNA, or as authorized by a waiver
approved by the COTP in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
    (4) The COTP will announce enforcement periods through Marine
Safety Information Bulletins and Safety Broadcast Notices to Mariners.
    (d) Waivers. (1) Upon request of the vessel owner or operator, the
COTP may waive any provision of paragraph (c) of this section, if the
COTP finds that the vessel's proposed operation can be conducted safely
under the terms of that waiver.
    (2) A request for waiver must be in writing, except as provided by
paragraph (d)(3) of this section, and must describe or provide:
    (i) The reason for requesting the waiver;
    (ii) The vessel's current operations;
    (iii) The name of any intended mooring facility, the specific
mooring location within that facility, and a list of vessels routinely
engaged in business at that facility;
    (iv) The vessel's proposed operation during the RNA enforcement
period, including intended mooring arrangements that comply with 33 CFR
165.803 and the mooring facility's equipment for supporting those
arrangements; and
    (v) Contact information for the vessel owner or operator during the
RNA enforcement period.

    (3) Under unusual circumstances due to time constraints, such as
the malfunction of a bridge or lock within the RNA, the person in
charge of a vessel may orally request an immediate waiver from the
COTP, but the vessel owner or operator must send written confirmation
of the request, containing the information required by paragraph (d)(2)
of this section, to the COTP within five days of the oral request.
    (4) The COTP may condition approval of a waiver request on the
vessel owner's or operator's taking measures additional to those
proposed in the waiver request, and may terminate a waiver at any time,
if the COTP deems it necessary to provide safety.
    (e) Penalties. Failure to comply with this section may result in
civil or criminal penalties pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.
    (f) Notice of enforcement. The COTP will notify the maritime
community of periods during which this regulated navigation area will
be enforced by providing advance notice through a Marine Safety
Information Bulletin and Safety Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: May 24, 2010.
J.E. Tunstall,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 2010-13641 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 33427-33428]
[DOCID:fr13jy09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13123-002]

Eagle Crest Energy Company; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

July 7, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-13123-002.
    c. Date filed: June 23, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Eagle Crest Energy Company.
    e. Name of Project: Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project.
    f. Location: The Project would be located in two depleted mining
pits in the Eagle Mountain Mine in Riverside County, California, near
the Town of Desert Center, California, and would occupy Federal lands
administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and private lands
owned by Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Stephen Lowe, One El Paseo West Building,
Suite 204, 74-199 El Paseo Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
    i. FERC Contact: Kim A. Nguyen, 888 First Street, NE., Room 61-01,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to Sec.  4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: August 21, 2009. The deadline for the
applicant's response to any such request is 30 days after the filing of
the request.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency
status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``e-filing''
link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on
``Quick Comment.''
    m. The application has not been accepted for filing and is not
ready for environmental analysis at this time.
    n. The project would consist of: (1) An 191-acre upper reservoir
impounded by two diversion dams with a total storage capacity of 20,000
acre-feet; (2) an 163-acre lower reservoir with a total storage
capacity of 21,900 acre-feet; (3) a 29-foot-diameter by 4,000-foot-long
low pressure upper tunnel; (4) a surge tank with a 33-foot-diameter by
1,348-foot-long tunnel shaft; (5) a 29-foot-diameter by 1,560-foot-long
high pressure lower tunnel; (6) a 33-foot-diameter by 6,835-

foot-long tailrace tunnel; (7) a 72-foot-wide, 130-foot-high, and 360-
foot-long underground powerhouse; (8) four reversible pump-turbine
units at 325 megawatts each, for a total installed capacity of 1,300
megawatts; (9) a 28-foot-wide, 28-foot-high, by 6,625-foot-long access
tunnel to the underground powerhouse; (10) a water supply pipeline
ranging from 12-to 24-inch-diameter totaling 15.3 miles; (11) a 13.5-
mile-long, 500-kilovolt transmission line connecting to a new
Interconnection Collector Substation; and (12) appurtenant facilities.
The average annual generation is estimated to be 22.2 gigawatt-hours.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36, CFR, at 800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate.

Study Requests, Deficiency/           July 2009.
 Additional Information Letter (if
 needed).
Issue Acceptance Letter.............  November 2009.
Notice that Application is Ready for  November 2009.
 Environmental Analysis.
Agency Comments, Terms, and           January 2010.
 Conditions.
Applicant Reply Comments............  March 2010.
Notice of the Availability of the     June 2010.
 Draft EIS.
Notice of the Availability of the     November 2010.
 Final EIS.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16561 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 46)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10610-10613]
[DOCID:fr09mr07-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0083; FRL-8286-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the state of Missouri. EPA is approving a request to amend
the Missouri SIP to include revisions to the St. Louis Solvent Metal
Cleaning rule. The revisions to this rule include consolidating
exemptions in the applicability section, adding new exemptions, adding
definitions of new and previously undefined terms, and clarifying rule
language regarding operating procedure requirements for spray gun
cleaners and air-tight and airless cleaning systems. This revision will
ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved rules.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 8, 2007, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 9, 2007.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0083, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2007-0083. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous

access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What is a SIP?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is being addressed in this document?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
What action is EPA taking?

What is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state
air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
    Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA.

What is being addressed in this document?

    On January 17, 2007, Missouri requested that EPA approve a revision
to the SIP to include changes to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.300, Control
of Emissions From Solvent Metal Cleaning. This rule specifies
equipment, operating procedures, and training requirements for the
reduction of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from solvent
metal cleaning operations in the St. Louis, Missouri, metropolitan
area. Generally, the revisions to this rule include: (1) Consolidating
exemptions in the applicability section, (2) adding new exemptions, (3)
adding definitions of new and previously undefined terms, and (4)
clarifying rule language regarding operating procedure requirements for
spray gun cleaners and air-tight and airless cleaning systems.
    More specifically, the revisions to the applicability section
include revisions to subsection (1)(C), which describes the processes
which use nonaqueous solvents to clean and remove soils from metal
parts which are subject to this rule, and subsection (1)(D), which
lists the solvents which are exempt from this rule. Subsection (1)(D)
consolidates existing exemptions into one section and adds three new
exemptions. The first new exemption is the exemption of solvent metal
cleaning operations which are regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
T, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning. The Missouri Department of Natural
Resources' Air Pollution Control Program (MDNR/APCP) states that the
solvents used in this practice are required to comply with the Federal
NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning and states that in general the
NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent

Cleaning work practices, solvent loss limits, equipment specifications,
and solvent recordkeeping/reporting requirements exceed the
requirements in the existing Missouri solvent metal cleaning rule.
Based on review of Missouri's analysis, we believe it is appropriate to
exempt this source category because the Federal NESHAP is at least as
stringent and sources must comply with this Federal NESHAP in order to
be exempt from the Missouri rule.
    The second and third new exemptions added were for flush cleaning
operations and hand cleaning/wiping operations. These exemptions were
also added because industry conducting these activities were already
regulated by Federal standard 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG, the NESHAP
for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities and by Missouri rule
10 CSR 10-5.455, Control of Emissions From Solvent Cleanup Operations.
Based on the review of this analysis, we believe that revision of this
rule to exempt these source categories because the Federal NESHAP and
existing state rule, 10 CSR 10-5.455, are at least as stringent and
sources must comply with this Federal NESHAP and existing state rule.
    The MDNR/APCP also added several new definitions and evaluated the
air quality impact of these new definitions. These definitions include:
(2)(E) Flush cleaning, (2)(I) hand cleaning/wiping operation, (2)(M)
nonaqueous solvent, and (2)(P) spray gun cleaner. These definitions
were added to provide clarity to the rule, and Missouri has provided an
analysis showing that this revision will not cause any increase in
emissions.
    The MDNR/APCP also reorganized the General Provisions section.
Specifically subsection (3)(A) of the rule was reorganized into
subparagraphs for cold cleaners, open-top vapor degreasers,
conveyorized degreasers, and air-tight or airless cleaning systems.
Subsection (3)(B) outlines operating procedures for the four operations
mentioned above. The spray gun cleaner, subparagraph (3)(B)4., and the
air-tight and airless cleaning systems, subparagraph (3)(B)5., were
added to provide more clarity to the rule's application for these two
operations. Subsection 3(C) was revised to add clarifying language to
the operator and supervisor training portion of this rule, and
subsection (4)(A), reporting and record keeping language, was revised
to require the records to be kept current and made available for review
on a monthly basis.
    The Solvent Metal Cleaning rule is part of the St. Louis 15% Rate
of Progress (ROP) Plan, which was required as part of the 1-hour ozone
moderate nonattainment area requirements. Therefore, Missouri is
currently developing an attainment demonstration and reasonable further
progress plan for the 8-hour ozone SIP for the area but has not
completed that work. Missouri has prepared documentation which
demonstrates that these rule revisions will not negatively impact air
quality in the St. Louis area. The demonstration consists of (1) an
explanation of the rationale for the revisions to the rule's format,
and (2) an evaluation of the revisions to the applicability section,
definitions section, general provisions section, the reporting and
record keeping section, and test methods section. The reformatting of
the rule makes this rule consistent with the general format of Missouri
air rules. The rule reformatting does not change any requirements and,
therefore, does not impact emissions. As explained above, the
additional exemptions in the rule do not significantly change the
emissions limits to which the affected sources are subject.

Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The submittal satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. In addition, the state submittal has met the public
notice requirements for SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102
and met the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA including section
110.

What action is EPA taking?

    We are approving the request to amend the Missouri SIP to include
revisions to the St. Louis Solvent Metal Cleaning rule, 10 CSR 10-
5.300.
    We are processing this action as a direct final action because the
revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are
noncontroversial and make regulatory revisions, required by state
statute. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please
note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if
that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 8, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 5 by revising
the entry for ``10-5.300'' to read as follows: Sec.  52.1320
Identification of plan.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
       Missouri citation                  Title           effective date   EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-5.300......................  Control of Emissions            11/30/06  3/9/07 [insert FR
                                 from Solvent Metal                        page number where
                                 Cleaning.                                 the document
                                                                           begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-4300 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14462]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

    Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting
of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) Advisory
Committee.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

    Name: Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee.
    Time and Date: April 18, 2012--9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Place: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW--Round Room (10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591.
    Purpose: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the
Committee guidance for FAA's research and development investments in
the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human
factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the
interested public but seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the
meeting or obtain information should contact Gloria Dunderman at (202)
267-8937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attendees will have to present
picture ID at the security desk and be escorted to the Round Room.
Members of the public may present a written statement to the Committee
at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 24, 2012.
Wilson Felder,
Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-5690 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37809-37810]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0561]
RIN 1625-AA08

Lake Union, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Lake Union, Seattle, WA
Safety

Zone in Lake Union from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008. This
action is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and spectators
during the Lake Union, Seattle, WA (Ivar's Fireworks Show). During the
enforcement period, entry into the Safety Zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, Seattle, WA. The
Captain of the Port may establish transit lanes along the east and west
shorelines of Lake Union and may allow boaters to transit north and
south through the safety zone in these lanes. If established, these
transit lanes will remain open until 10 p.m. and then be closed until
the end of the fireworks display.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1306 will be enforced from 9:30
p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Heidi Bevis, c/o Captain of the
Port Puget Sound, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South,
Seattle, WA 98134 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
for the Lake Union, Seattle, WA Fireworks Show, 33 CFR 165.1306 on July
4th, 2008, from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    This safety zone provides for a regulated area to protect
spectators. Movements are regulated for all vessels in the area as
described under 33 CFR Sec.  165.1306 or unless otherwise regulated by
the COTP or his designee. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
safety zone.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1306, all portions of the waters
of Lake Union bounded by the following coordinates: Latitude
47[deg]38'32'' N, Longitude 122[deg]20'34'' W; thence to Latitude
47[deg]38'32'' N, Longitude 122[deg]19'48'' W; thence to Latitude
47[deg]38'10'' N, Longitude 122[deg]20'24'' W; thence returning to the
origin. This safety zone begins 1,000 feet south of Gas Works Park and
encompasses all waters from east to west for 2,500 feet. Floating
markers will be placed by the sponsor of the fireworks demonstration to
delineate the boundaries of the safety zone.
    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 165.1306(c) and 5
U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: June 18, 2008.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. E8-15032 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P