[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 233 (Friday, December 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75870-75871]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0021; OMB No. 1660-0009]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; The Declaration Process: Requests for Preliminary
Damage Assessment (PDA), Requests for Supplemental Federal Disaster
Assistance, Appeals, and Requests for Cost Share Adjustments

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning The Declaration Process: Requests
for Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA), Requests for Supplemental
Federal Disaster Assistance, Appeals, and Requests for Cost Share
Adjustments collection. This collection allows States and Tribes to
request a major disaster or emergency declaration.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2015-0021. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Declarations Unit,
Federal Emergency Management Agency at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for additional information. You may contact
the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Sections 401 and 501 of the Richard T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act)
(42 U.S.C 5170 and 5190), if a State or Tribe is impacted by an event
of the severity and magnitude that is beyond its response capabilities,
the State Governor or Chief Executive may seek a declaration by the
President that a major disaster or emergency exists. Any major disaster
or emergency request must be submitted through FEMA, which evaluates
the request and makes a recommendation to the President about what
response action to take. If the major disaster or emergency declaration
request is granted, the State or Tribe may be eligible to receive
assistance under 42 U.S.C. 5170a-5170c; 5172-5186; 5189c-5189d; and
5192. A State or Tribe may appeal denials of a major disaster or
emergency declaration request for determinations under section 44 CFR
206.46 and seek an adjustment to the cost share percentage under
section 44 CFR 206.47. FEMA is revising the currently approved
information collection to account for a new checkbox on FEMA Form 010-
0-13 so that States or Tribes can indicate whether they will be seeking
assistance from the Small Business Administration.

Collection of Information

    Title: The Declaration Process: Requests for Preliminary Damage
Assessment (PDA), Requests for Supplemental Federal Disaster
Assistance, Appeals, and Requests for Cost Share Adjustments.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0009.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 010-0-13, Request for Presidential Disaster
Declaration Major Disaster or Emergency.
    Abstract: When a disaster occurs, the Governor of the State or the
Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government, may request a
major disaster declaration or an emergency declaration. The Governor or
Chief Executive should submit the request to the President through the
appropriate Regional Administrator to ensure prompt acknowledgement and
processing. The information obtained by joint Federal, State, and local
preliminary damage assessments will be analyzed by FEMA regional senior
level staff. The regional summary and the regional analysis and
recommendation will include a discussion of State and local resources
and capabilities, and other assistance available to meet the disaster
related needs. The Administrator of FEMA provides a recommendation to
the President and also provides a copy of the Governor's or Chief
Executive's request. In the event the information required by law is

not contained in the request, the Governor's or Chief Executive's
request cannot be processed and forwarded to the White House. In the
event the Governor's request for a major disaster declaration or an
emergency declaration is not granted, the Governor or Chief Executive
may appeal the decision.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 623.
    Number of Responses: 356.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,748.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $527,976.48. There are no annual costs to respondents'
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$3,934,673.24.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: November 24, 2015.
Richard W. Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2015-30642 Filed 12-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 55512]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-15, OMB Control No. 3235-0409, SEC File No. 270-360.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing collection of
information provided for in the following rule: Rule 17a-10 (17 CFR
240.17Ad-15) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.).
    Rule 17Ad-15 requires approximately 477 transfer agents to
establish written standards for accepting and rejecting guarantees of
securities transfers from eligible guarantor institutions. Transfer
agents are also required to establish procedures to ensure that those
standards are used by the transfer agent to determine whether to accept
or reject guarantees from eligible guarantor institutions. Transfer
agents must maintain, for a period of three years following the date of
a rejection of transfer, a record of all transfers rejected, along with
the reason for the rejection, identification of the guarantor, and
whether the guarantor failed to meet the transfer agent's guarantee
standard. These recordkeeping requirements assist the Commission and
other regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring
compliance with the rule.
    There are approximately 477 registered transfer agents. The staff
estimates that every transfer agent will spend about 40 hours annually
to comply with Rule 17Ad-15. The total annual burden for all transfer
agents is 23,480 hours (477 times 40). The average cost per hour is
approximately $50. Therefore, the total cost of compliance for all
transfer agents is $1,174,000 (23,480 times $50).
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this
notice.

    Dated: September 4, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22143 Filed 9-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I have used tobacco products for over 15 years, I never thought about quitting or even cutting back; that was until I started using an electronic cigarette (vaping) about 9 months ago. Within this time period I have noticed my sense of smell is better, I can walk farther without loss of breath, both things are huge to me because I never realized it was due to smoking (I am big boy). In addition to those awaking’s mentioned before, I also have been getting more waking hours, I seem to be getting a better night sleep faster, I also find myself not depressed like I was when I was smoker.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


1 TRI Burden Reduction Analytic Methods and Preliminary Results October 19, 2004 Paul A. Borst 202 566 2284 Borst. Paul@ epa. gov 2 2002 Baseline Burden ° Baseline burden refers to the starting point you are using to compare against the change resulting from rulemaking.

° 2002 baseline burden for Form R is approximately 3.8 million hours.

° 2002 baseline burden for Form A is approximately 260,000 hours 3 ° In contrast to modifications to Form R itself,

the Program Related burden reduction options center on raising reporting thresholds,

expanding eligibility for Form A or a simplified form, instead of filling out Form R itself.

° The trade off to society presented by this type of burden reduction are the burden hours saved by not filling out Form R balanced against any lost data of lbs. toxic chemicals not reported.

TRI Program Related Options 4 TRI Program Related Options ° Part of evaluating the trade off can include consideration of specific groups of filers and chemicals as well as end users of data.

  Examples for filers could include, small businesses,

zero releasers, and filers who only recycle   Examples of chemicals could include TRI chemicals in nondispersible form ( e. g., metal alloys), VOCs that are oxidants only.

  Examples of specific end users of data include community leaders, environmental groups, and state governments. 5 Option 1, Small Businesses ° Small businesses (< 50 employees per facility)

° This option could vary according to small business definition and threshold ° The range of facility size could be between 10 and 100 employees per facility 6 Option 2, Raising thresholds for classes of chemicals/ facilities ° Would raise thresholds for specific categories of facilities or chemicals ° One variant of this option pertains to zero releasers, defined as facilities that do not release TRI chemicals either onsite or offsite.

° Zero releasers manage TRI chemicals through recycling, energy recovery or treatment for destruction.

° Simplified reporting form for those who only recycle. 7 Zero Releaser Demographics ° 5300 facilities ° 8500 Form Rs ° Over 300 million lbs of TRI chemicals recycled,

burned for energy recovery or treated.

° Among recycling zero releasers, metal recovery ( lead, copper, manganese, chromium, nickel)

was dominant.

° Among treatment, acid neutralization for sulfuric, nitric, formic acids were dominant. 8 Option 3, Expanding eligibility for Form A ° Modeling assuming a 500 lbs limit on annual reportable amount but removed recycling & energy recovery from annual reportable amount ( ARA).

° A variant of this option would be to increase the threshold on the ARA or both remove data fields from the ARA and increase the threshold. 9 Option 4, No Significant Change ° 3 parameters analyzed:

  production ratio ( Section 8.9)

  total releases ( Section 8.1)

  total production related wastes ( Section 8.1

8.8)

° Range of 0 to 15 percent used to model.

° Variant using range codes instead of 3 parameters is currently under consideration. 10 Option 5, Range Reporting in Section 8 of Form R ° No preliminary analysis at this time ° Future analysis to focus on burden savings, if any and an Option 4 variant 11 Range Reporter Demographics ° Between 1991 and 2002, 43 to 53 % of all Form R's submitted were eligible to use current range codes in sections 5 and 6, respectively.

° Despite this fact, actual range reporting averaged only between 21 and 37 % over the same period.

° One possible reason range codes are not used more widely is that ` range' codes are not currently allowed in Section 8, possibly forcing the Form R filer to estimate ` precise' weight. This may deter users from submitting a range code in Section 5 and 6 since the weight would already be required in Section 8. 12 Ongoing Analysis ° Disaggregated chemical specific data loss for Options 1, 3 and 4.

° Correlational analysis for production ratio, total releases, and total production related waste for Option 4.

° Option 5, Range reporting variant for Option 4.


[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 51285-51287]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0163]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Draft Guidance,
Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:  Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 5, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB Control Number 0910-0595.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jonna Capezzuto, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Draft Guidance, Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products--(OMB
Control Number 0910-0595)--Extension

    The draft guidance describes the agency's general recommendations
and procedures for issuance of emergency use authorizations (EUA) under
section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21
U.S.C. 360bbb-3), which was amended by the Project BioShield Act of
2004 (Pub. L. 108-276). The act permits the FDA Commissioner (the
Commissioner) to authorize the use of unapproved medical products or
unapproved uses of approved medical products during an emergency
declared under section 564 of the act. The data to support issuance of
an EUA must demonstrate that, based on the totality of the scientific
evidence available to the Commissioner, including data from adequate
and well-controlled clinical trials (if available), it is reasonable to
believe that the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or
preventing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition (21
U.S.C. 360bbb-3(c)). Although the exact type and amount of data needed
to support an EUA may vary depending on the nature of the declared
emergency and the nature of the candidate product, FDA recommends that
a request for consideration for an EUA include scientific evidence
evaluating the product's safety and effectiveness, including the
adverse event profile for diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of the
serious or life-threatening disease or condition, as well as data and
other information on safety, effectiveness, risks and benefits, and (to
the extent available) alternatives.
    Under section 564 of the act, the FDA Commissioner may establish
conditions on the approval of an EUA. Section 564(e) requires the FDA
Commissioner (to the extent practicable given the

circumstances of the emergency) to establish certain conditions on an
authorization that the Commissioner finds necessary or appropriate to
protect the public health and permits the FDA Commissioner to establish
other conditions that he finds necessary or appropriate to protect the
public health. Conditions authorized by section 564(e) of the act
include, for example: Requirements for information dissemination to
health care providers or authorized dispensers and product recipients;
adverse event monitoring and reporting; data collection and analysis;
recordkeeping and records access; restrictions on product advertising,
distribution, and administration; and limitations on good manufacturing
practices requirements. Some conditions, the statute specifies, are
mandatory to the extent practicable for authorizations of unapproved
products and discretionary for authorizations of unapproved uses of
approved products. Moreover, some conditions may apply to manufacturers
of an EUA product, while other conditions may apply to any person who
carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued. Section
564 of the act also gives the FDA Commissioner authority to establish
other conditions on an authorization that he finds to be necessary or
appropriate to protect the public health.
    For purposes of estimating the burden of reporting, FDA has
established six categories of respondents: (1) Those who file a Request
for Consideration for an EUA and, in lieu of submitting the data,
provide reference to a pending or approved application; (2) those who
file a Request for Consideration for an EUA, without reference to a
pending or approved application; (3) those who submit pre-EUA
submissions to FDA on a candidate EUA product, which references a
pending or approved application; (4) those who submit pre-EUA
submissions to FDA on a candidate EUA product, for which there is no
reference to a pending or approved application; (5) manufacturers of an
unapproved EUA product who must report to FDA regarding such activity;
and (6) state and local public health officials who carry out an
activity related to an unapproved EUA product (e.g., administering the
product to recipients) and who must report to FDA regarding such
activity.
    For purposes of estimating the burden of recordkeeping, FDA has
calculated the anticipated burden on manufacturers of unapproved
products authorized for emergency use. FDA also anticipates that some
state and local public health officials may be required to perform
additional recordkeeping (e.g., related to the administration of
unapproved EUA products to civilians) and calculated a recordkeeping
burden for those activities.
    No burden was attributed to reporting or recordkeeping for
unapproved uses of approved products, since those products already are
subject to approved collections of information (adverse experience
reporting for biological products is approved under OMB Control No.
0910-0308 through September 30, 2011; adverse drug experience reporting
is approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0230 through July 31, 2012;
investigational new drug application regulations are approved under OMB
Control No. 0910-0014 through August 31, 2011; and investigational
device exemption reporting is approved under OMB Control Number 0910-
0078 through January 31, 2010). Thus, FDA estimates the burden of this
collection of information as follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
                   Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for                    5                     2                 10                 15                150
 Consideration
 ; Pending
 Application
 on File
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for                    4                     2                  8                 50                400
 Consideration
 ; No
 Application
 Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-EUA                         2                     2                  4                 20                 80
 Submissions;
 Pending
 Application
 on File
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-EUA                        11                     2                 22                 75              1,650
 Submissions;
 No
 Application
 Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers                   3                     4                 12                  2                 24
 of an
 Unapproved
 EUA Product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and                      30                     4                360                  2                240
 Local Public
 Health
 Officials;
 Unapproved
 EUA Product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                2,544
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                               Table 2.--Estimated Recordkeeping Annual Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual
                  Recordkeepers      per Recordkeeping        Records       Hours per  Record     Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers                   3                     4                 12                 25                300
 of an
 Unapproved
 EUA Product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and                      30                     4                120                  3                360
 Local Public
 Health
 Officials;
 Unapproved
 EUA Product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total                                                                                660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The annual burden estimate for this information collection is 3,204
hours. The estimated reporting burden for this collection is 2,544
hours, and the estimated recordkeeping burden is 660 hours.
    In the Federal Register of April 20, 2009 (74 FR 17962), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received. However, in the
period of time since the 60-day notice was drafted, there was a
determination of public health emergency involving the 2009 H1N1 virus
and multiple declarations supporting the issuance of EUAs. As a result
of this increased activity and the likelihood of a continued increase
in the number of EUA and pre-EUA submissions, on its own initiative,
FDA is providing estimates based on the number of reports that the
agency received in the past year.

    Dated: September 29, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-24048 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30001-30004]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, John F. Kennedy International
Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Newark Liberty
International Airport, and San Francisco International Airport for the
Winter 2020/2021 Scheduling Season

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation,.

ACTION: Notice of submission deadline.

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

SUMMARY: Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline
of May 14, 2020, for Winter 2020/2021 flight schedules at Chicago
O'Hare International Airport (ORD), John F. Kennedy International
Airport (JFK), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Newark Liberty
International Airport (EWR), and San Francisco International Airport
(SFO). The deadline coincides with the schedule submission deadline for
the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Calendar of
Coordination Activities for the Winter 2020/2021 scheduling season.

DATES: Schedules must be submitted no later than May 14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be submitted by mail to the Slot
Administration Office, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Meilus, Manager, Slot
Administration, AJR-G, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides routine notice to
carriers serving capacity-constrained airports in the United States.

General Information for All Airports

    The FAA has designated EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO as IATA Level 2
airports \1\ and JFK as an IATA Level 3 airport consistent with the
Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG).\2\ The FAA currently limits scheduled
operations at JFK by order that expires on October 24, 2020.\3\ The
U.S. Winter 2020/2021 scheduling season is from October 25, 2020,
through March 27, 2021, in recognition of the IATA northern winter
scheduling period. Notwithstanding that carriers may presently face
unusual uncertainty about their operations in light of Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19), carriers should continue preparations for
schedule facilitation at Level 2 airports and an extension of slot
controls at JFK during the Winter 2020/2021 scheduling season, even if
the effects of COVID-19 continue into the Winter 2020/2021 scheduling
season.\4\

Recognizing that there is presently uncertainty about the outlook for
passenger demand in the Winter 2020/2021 season, advance planning
consistent with the IATA Worldwide Slot Guidelines and the FAA's usual
process is expected to preserve stability during the COVID-19 crisis,
which has caused unprecedented disruption to the aviation industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These designations remain effective until the FAA announces
a change in the Federal Register.
    \2\ The FAA applies the WSG to the extent there is no conflict
with U.S. law or regulation. The FAA is reviewing recent substantive
amendments to the WSG adopted in version 10 and considering whether
to implement certain changes in the United States.
    \3\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport, 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008), as most recently extended 83 FR
46865 (Sep. 17, 2018). The slot coordination parameters for JFK are
set forth in this Order.
    \4\ For additional information on COVID-19 impacts at designated
IATA Level 2 and 3 airports in the United States and actions taken
by the FAA to preserve stability through the Summer 2020 scheduling
season, see Notice of extension of limited waiver of the minimum
slot usage requirement, 85 FR 21500 (Apr. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is primarily concerned about scheduled and other regularly
conducted commercial operations during peak hours, but carriers may
submit schedule plans for the entire day. The peak hours for the Winter
2020/2021 scheduling season are: At EWR from 0600 to 2300 Eastern Time
(1100 to 0400 UTC), at LAX and SFO from 0600 to 2300 Pacific Time (1400
to 0700 UTC), at ORD from 0600 to 2100 Central Time (1200 to 0300 UTC),
and at JFK from 0600 to 2300 Eastern Time (1100 to 0400 UTC). These
hours are unchanged from previous scheduling seasons.
    Carriers should submit schedule information in sufficient detail
including, at minimum, the marketing or operating carrier, flight
number, scheduled time of operation, frequency, aircraft equipment, and
effective dates. IATA standard schedule information format and data
elements for communications at Level 2 and Level 3 airports in the IATA
Standard Schedules Information Manual (SSIM) Chapter 6 may be used. The
IATA WSG provides additional information on schedule submissions at
Level 2 and Level 3 airports. Some carriers at JFK manage and track
slots through FAA-assigned Slot ID numbers corresponding to an arrival
or departure slot in a particular half-hour on a particular day and
date. The FAA has recently initiated a similar voluntary process for
tracking approved schedules at EWR with Reference IDs, and certain
carriers are managing their approved schedules accordingly. These are
primarily U.S. and Canadian carriers that have the highest frequencies
and considerable schedule changes throughout the season and can benefit
from a simplified exchange of information not dependent on full flight
details. Carriers are encouraged to submit schedule requests at those
airports using Slot or Reference IDs.
    As stated in the WSG, schedule facilitation at a Level 2 airport is
based on the following: (1) Schedule adjustments are mutually agreed
upon between the airlines and the facilitator; (2) the intent is to
avoid exceeding the airport's coordination parameters; (3) the concepts
of historic precedence and series of slots do not apply at Level 2
airports; although WSG recommends giving priority to approved services
that plan to operate unchanged from the previous equivalent season at
Level 2 airports, and (4) the facilitator should adjust the smallest
number of flights by the least amount of time necessary to avoid
exceeding the airport's coordination parameters. Consistent with the
WSG, the success of Level 2 in the United States depends on the
voluntary cooperation of all carriers.
    The FAA considers several factors and priorities as it reviews
schedule and slot requests at Level 2 and Level 3 airports, which are
consistent with the WSG, including--historic slots or services from the
previous equivalent season over new demand for the same timings,
services that are unchanged over services that plan to change time or
other capacity relevant parameters, introduction of year-round
services, effective period of operation, regularly planned operations
over ad hoc operations, and other operational factors that may limit a
carrier's timing flexibility. In addition to applying these priorities
from the WSG, the U.S. Government has adopted a number of measures and
procedures to promote competition and new entry at U.S. slot-controlled
and schedule-facilitated airports.
    At Level 2 airports, the FAA seeks to maintain close communications
with carriers and terminal schedule facilitators on potential runway
schedule issues or terminal and gate issues that may affect the runway
times. As explained in prior notices, the FAA also seeks to reduce the
time that carriers consider proposed offers on schedules. To allow the
FAA to make informed decisions at airports where operations in some
hours are at or near the scheduling limits, the FAA expects to
substantially complete the review process on initial submissions each
scheduling season within 30 days of the end of the Slot Conference.\5\
After this time, the agency confirms the acceptance of proposed offers
or issues a denial of schedule requests, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ IATA has canceled the Winter 2020/2021 Slot Conference,
which had been scheduled for June 16-18, 2020; however, the FAA
intends to substantially complete the review process on initial
submissions in July 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Slot management in the United States differs in some respect from
procedures in other countries. In the United States, the FAA is
responsible for facilitation and coordination of runway access for
takeoffs and landings at Level 2 and Level 3 airports; however, the
airport authority or its designee is responsible for facilitation and
coordination of terminal/gate/airport facility access. The process with
the individual airports for terminal access and other airport services
is separate from, and in addition to, the FAA schedule review based on
runway capacity. Approval from the FAA for runway availability and the
airport authority for airport facility availability is necessary before
implementing schedule plans. Carriers seeking terminal approval should
contact the schedule facilitator for that airport.
    Generally, the FAA uses average hourly runway capacity throughput
for airports and performance metrics in conducting its schedule review
at Level 2 airports and determining the scheduling limits at Level 3
airports included in FAA rules or orders.\6\ The FAA also considers
other factors that can affect operations, such as capacity changes due
to runway, taxiway, or other airport construction, air traffic control
procedural changes, airport surface operations, and historical or
projected flight delays and congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The FAA typically determines an airport's average adjusted
runway capacity or typical throughput for Level 2 airports by
reviewing hourly data on the arrival and departure rates that air
traffic control indicates could be accepted for that hour, commonly
known as ``called'' rates. The FAA also reviews the actual number of
arrivals and departures that operated in the same hour. Generally,
the FAA uses the higher of the two numbers, called or actual, for
identifying trends and schedule review purposes. Some dates are
excluded from analysis, such as during periods when extended airport
closures or construction could affect capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FAA notes that the schedule information submitted by
carriers to the FAA may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The WSG also provides for release of
information at certain stages of slot coordination and schedule
facilitation. In general, once it acts on a schedule submission or slot
request, the FAA may release information on slot allocation or similar
slot transactions or schedule information reviewed as part of the
schedule facilitation process. The FAA does not expect that practice to
change and most slot and schedule information would not be exempt from
release under FOIA. The FAA recognizes that some carriers may submit
information on schedule plans that is both customarily and actually
treated as private. Carriers that submit such confidential schedule
information should clearly mark the information as ``PROPIN''. The FAA

will take the necessary steps to protect properly designated
information to the extent allowable by law.

Airport-Specific Updates

EWR Assessment Status

    As stated in prior notices, the FAA regularly monitors operations
and performance metrics at EWR to identify ways to improve operational
efficiency and achieve delay reductions in a Level 2 environment.
Access to EWR and the New York City area generally remains coveted.
Requests for flights at EWR have exceeded the scheduling limits in the
early morning and for multiple hours in the afternoon and evening. The
FAA has regularly advised carriers that it would not be able to
accommodate requests for new or retimed operations into peak hours and
worked with carriers to identify alternative times that were available.
In some cases, carriers have been able to swap with other carriers for
their preferred times. Carriers may continue to seek swaps in order to
operate within periods in which operations are at the scheduling
limits. However, swaps should be reported to the FAA, as carriers are
expected to operate according to the FAA's approved runway times.
    For the Winter 2020/2021 season, the hourly scheduling limit
remains at 79 operations and 43 operations per half-hour.\7\ Based on
historical demand and a pre-Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) public health
emergency increase in operations in ``shoulder'' periods adjacent to
the busiest hours, most hours are now at the scheduling limits. To help
with a balance between arrivals and departures, the maximum number of
scheduled arrivals or departures, respectively, is 43 in an hour and 24
in a half-hour. This would allow some higher levels of operations in
certain periods (not to exceed the hourly limits) and some recovery
from lower demand in adjacent periods. Consistent with past practice at
EWR, the FAA will accept flights above the limits if the approved
flights were operated by the same carrier on a regular basis in the
previous corresponding season (i.e., Winter 2019/2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 83 FR 21335 (May 1, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes there are periods when the demand in half-hours and
consecutive half-hours exceeds the optimum runway capacity and the
scheduling limits in this notice.\8\ The historical imbalance of
scheduled arrivals and departures in certain periods has contributed to
increased congestion and delays when the demand exceeds the arrival or
departure rates. The FAA previously advised that retiming a minimal
number of arrivals in the early afternoon hours, such as 1400, to the
1300 and 1200 hours could have significant delay reduction benefits, as
early afternoon delays continue to impact operations into the evening
hours. As part of the voluntary schedule facilitation process for the
Winter 2019/2020 scheduling season, some carriers adjusted schedules to
reduce demand in certain hours and help balance the mix of arrivals and
departures in some periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Following the Level 2 designation effective with the winter
2016/2017 scheduling season, the FAA has rolled out reduced hourly
scheduling limits from 81 per hour to 79 and applied additional
half-hour and arrival and departure limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the WSG, carriers should be prepared to adjust
schedules to meet the scheduling limits in order to minimize potential
congestion and delay. The FAA has consistently stated in prior seasonal
schedule submission notices that new operations will not be approved
unless the period is below the FAA scheduling limits.\9\ Consistent
with this approach, the FAA will not be approving new flights for the
Winter 2020/2021 scheduling season if operations are at or above the
applicable scheduling limits. However, the FAA notes that there may be
availability for ad hoc passenger and cargo operations due to temporary
COVID-19-related service changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Notice of Submission Deadline for the Winter 2019/
2020 Scheduling Season, 84 FR 18630 at 18632 (May 1, 2019); Notice
of Submission Deadline for the Summer 2019 Scheduling Season, 83 FR
49155at 49156-49157 (Sep. 28, 2018); and, Notice of Submission
Deadline for the Winter 2018/2019 Scheduling Season, 83 FR 21335 at
21337-21338 (May 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carriers are reminded that the FAA's runway approval is separate
from any other approvals that may be required by the airport terminal
or other facilities prior to operating flights at the airport.
    As indicated in the EWR schedule submission notice for the Summer
2020 scheduling season, the FAA is assessing the impacts on performance
of peak period reductions and other schedule changes, such as Southwest
Airlines' cessation of operations at EWR, as well as the impacts on
competition, in close coordination with the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation.\10\ This assessment is ongoing; the FAA intends to
publish additional information on the outcome of this assessment in the
future. Because the sudden, drastic disruption caused by COVID-19
complicates the analysis, the FAA anticipates that additional time will
be necessary to study all relevant long-term effects of recent
operational, performance, and demand-related changes at EWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information
for Newark Liberty International Airport for the Summer 2020
Scheduling Season, 84 FR 52580 at 52582. The FAA noted that
Southwest announced it would discontinue all EWR flights effective
November 2, 2019, and that requests for new flights by other
carriers would be approved by FAA only to the extent the new
operations did not exceed the scheduling limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the EWR schedule submission notice for the Summer
2020 scheduling season, the FAA will not in Winter 2020/2021 be
replacing or ``backfilling'' the peak morning and afternoon/evening
operations that Southwest Airlines conducted during Winter 2018/2019
and Summer 2019, to the extent the new operations would exceed the
current scheduling limits. New operations may be approved by the FAA,
subject to terminal and gate availability, in hours in which operations
are below the scheduling limits, including any offsets for periods
above the limits, consistent with established FAA policy and procedures
as described in seasonal notices and the WSG.\11\ In addition, the FAA
is tracking unmet schedule requests at EWR for future consideration.
The FAA will continue to follow the established schedule facilitation
process at EWR consistent with the IATA WSG and as described in prior
schedule submission notices.\12\ Additionally, there may be
availability for ad hoc passenger and cargo operations due to temporary
COVID-19-related service changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 7.
    \12\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Construction Updates

    The FAA is aware of preliminary plans by the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a full runway closure of up to 180
days to reconstruct Runway 4R/22L at EWR. The FAA is closely monitoring
the scope and timing of this project currently expected to start in
spring 2021. The FAA plans to work with the PANYNJ and carriers to
assess operational impacts and potential changes in delays and to
develop mitigation strategies, as appropriate. Other ongoing
construction includes the Terminal One redevelopment program with the
demolition of the existing Terminal A complex and construction of a new
Terminal One complex and South taxiways and ramp area. Ramp and taxiway
congestion may be impacted at times due to the construction.
    In addition, construction projects are upcoming or underway at JFK,
LAX and ORD. For additional information see https://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/

headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/perf_analysis/
sys_cap_eval/. The construction plans for each of the airports is
subject to change. The airport operators regularly meet with the FAA,
airlines, and other stakeholders to review construction plans, identify
operational or other issues, and develop mitigation strategies.
Carriers interested in additional information on construction plans
should contact the airport operator to obtain further details or
information on stakeholder discussions.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2020.
Virginia Boyle,
Deputy Vice President, System Operations Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-10696 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45491-45498]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 106

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0086]
RIN 1625-AC23

Requirements for Vessels With Registry Endorsements or Foreign-
Flagged Vessels That Perform Certain Aquaculture Support Operations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations to implement
Section 901(c) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 that grants
the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) the
authority to issue a waiver allowing a documented vessel with only a
registry endorsement or a foreign-flagged vessel to be used in certain
aquaculture operations. Specifically, those operations include the
treatment and/or protection of aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic
infestation, or other threats to their health. The proposed part would
establish the requirement for an owner or operator of a vessel who is
issued a waiver by the Secretary of DOT to notify the Coast Guard that
the vessel owner or operator has been issued a waiver that allows the
vessel to conduct certain aquaculture support operations. The proposed
part would also establish operational and geographic requirements for
vessels that are issued such a waiver.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before October 28,
2015 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. Comments
sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the collection of
information must reach OMB on or before October 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0086 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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.
    Collection of Information Comments: If you have comments on the
collection of information discussed in section VI.D. of this notice of
proposed rulemaking, you must also send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and
Budget. To ensure that your comments to OIRA are received on time, the
preferred methods are by email

to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include the docket number and
``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS'' in the subject line of
the email) or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An alternate, though slower, method
is by the U.S. Postal Service to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. David Belliveau, Fishing Vessels Division (CG-
CVC-3), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2015-0086), 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 or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
and follow the instructions on that Web site. 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 this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the instructions on that Web site. If you do not have access to
the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting 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.

C. Privacy Act

    You can search the electronic form of comments received into any of
our dockets by searching for the name of the individual who submitted
the comment (or who signed the comment, if the comment was 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).

D. Public Meeting

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

II. Abbreviations

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGAA Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010
COD Certificate of Documentation
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pub. L. Public Law
RA Regulatory Analysis
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Basis and Purpose

    Under Title 46 U.S.C. 12102(d)(1), the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) may issue a waiver to allow a
documented vessel with only a registry endorsement or a foreign-flagged
vessel to be used in operations that treat aquaculture fish for or
protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other
threats to their health if the Secretary finds, after publishing a
notice in the Federal Register (FR), that a suitable vessel of the
United States is not available to perform those services.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These services are generally performed by ``wellboats''
(commonly understood as fishing and housing facility vessels) that
pump fish out of their pens and into the vessel's fish hold. The
fish hold is full of sea water and while the fish are inside the
fish hold, a metered dose of de-lousing chemical is added to the
fish holds. The water is then circulated vigorously to ensure
complete mixing of the de-lousing agent. Upon completion of the
treatment cycle, the fish are returned to their pens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Coast Guard
proposes to amend 46 CFR subchapter I--Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels,
by adding a new part 106 that would establish the requirement for an
owner or operator of a vessel who is issued a waiver by the Secretary
of DOT, for the purpose of conducting certain aquaculture support
operations, to notify the Coast Guard that such a waiver has been
issued. The proposed part would also establish operational and
geographic requirements for a vessel that is issued such a waiver.

IV. Background

    Section 901 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (CGAA)
(Pub. L. 111-281) amended 46 U.S.C. 12102 by adding subsection (d).
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12102(d)(1), the Secretary of DOT may issue a
waiver allowing a documented vessel with only a registry

endorsement or a foreign-flagged vessel to be used in operations that
treat or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation,
or other threats to their health if the Secretary finds, after
publishing a notice in the Federal Register, that a suitable vessel of
the United States is not available that could perform those services.
    This NPRM proposes regulations necessary to implement the Coast
Guard's rulemaking responsibility as prescribed by 901(c)(2) of the
CGAA. In that subsection, Congress directed the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the department under which the
Coast Guard operates, to promulgate regulations that are necessary and
appropriate for permitting nonqualified vessels to perform certain
aquaculture support operations. It also authorizes the Secretary of DHS
to ``grant interim permits pending the issuance of such regulations
upon receipt of applications containing the required information.''
Through this rule, we propose to establish the requirement that an
owner or operator of a vessel who is issued a waiver by the Secretary
of DOT for the purpose of conducting certain aquaculture support
operations notify the Coast Guard that such a waiver has been issued.
This proposed rule would also establish operational and geographic
requirements for vessels that are issued such waivers.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Through this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to add 46 CFR
part 106, ``Requirements for Nonqualified Vessels that Perform Certain
Aquaculture Support Operations.'' This proposed part would establish
the requirement for owners or operators of vessels who are issued a
waiver by the Secretary of DOT to conduct certain aquaculture support
operations to notify the Coast Guard that such a waiver has been
issued. In developing this proposed notification requirement, we
considered the possibility of DOT notifying the Coast Guard that a
waiver has been issued rather than imposing this notification burden on
the owner/operator. However, we decided that an owner/operator may be
better served if the owner/operator retains the responsibility of
notifying the Coast Guard rather than rely on the issuing agency
because doing so gives the owner/operator full and complete control
regarding the timing of the notification. For more information on this
proposed notification requirement, including the mailing and email
addresses that notifications are to be sent, refer to Sec.  106.115. We
are interested in hearing public comment on this proposed notification
requirement (and the possibility of having DOT provide waiver
notifications instead of an owner/operator) as we do with all of the
requirements proposed in this rule. The proposed part would also
establish operational and geographic requirements for vessels that are
issued such a waiver. Based on submissions of applications for interim
permits, we propose to require an owner or operator of a vessel who is
issued a waiver by the Secretary of DOT, to submit to the Coast Guard:
    (1) The vessel(s) name(s);
    (2) The vessel's official and/or International Maritime
Organization number;
    (3) The geographic location within the waters of the United States
where the vessel(s) will conduct aquaculture treatment operations;
    (4) The period of time during which the waiver for the vessel(s) is
approved including:
    (i) The start date (MM/DD/YYYY); and
    (ii) The expiration date (MM/DD/YYYY); and
    (5) A copy of the DOT-approved aquaculture waiver.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563,
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
    This NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563. Accordingly, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. A
combined preliminary Regulatory Analysis (RA) follows.
    This RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated
with this proposed rule. The table that follows provides a summary of
the proposed rule's costs and benefits.

             Table 1--Summary of the Proposed Rule's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability.....................  Owners or operators of vessels that
                                     are issued a waiver allowing a
                                     documented vessel with only a
                                     registry endorsement or a foreign-
                                     flagged vessel to be used in
                                     operations that treat aquaculture
                                     fish.
Affected Population...............  2 vessels.
Costs to Industry and Government..  10-year: $808.98.
($, 7% discount rate).............  Annualized: $115.18.
Unquantified Benefits.............  Allows the Coast Guard to readily
                                     identify vessels with waivers to
                                     perform certain aquaculture support
                                     operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 27, 2010, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ruled
that aquaculture activities constitute ``engag[ing] in the fisheries,''
and is thus within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. 108, for which a vessel
must possess a Certificate of Documentation (COD) endorsed pursuant to
46 U.S.C. 12113 (See CBP ruling HQ H105735). Title 46 U.S.C. 12113
limits employment in the fisheries to a vessel issued a COD with a
fishery endorsement. This effectively disqualifies any foreign-flagged
vessel from carrying out these activities.
    Wellboats (or live fish carriers) were especially affected by this
CBP ruling. Wellboats are highly specialized vessels that are used to
treat farmed salmon. The wellboats are designed to service large
inventories of farmed salmon during the salt-water grow-out phase

and are specially equipped to protect the fish onboard the vessel.
Direct treatment aboard a wellboat is currently the most efficient and
effective method to treat salmon. If left untreated, salmon inventories
can be destroyed and the industry can lose revenue. Currently, no U.S.-
flagged wellboats exist. The only wellboats available to the U.S.
salmon aquaculture industry are foreign-flagged vessels, which make the
industry highly dependent on foreign-flagged wellboats.
    Through this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to amend its
regulations to implement Section 901(c) of the CGAA. Under that
provision, the Secretary of DOT has the authority to issue a waiver
allowing a documented vessel with only a registry endorsement or a
foreign-flagged vessel to be used in certain aquaculture support
operations that treat or protect aquaculture fish from disease,
parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health if no suitable
U.S.-flagged vessel is available to perform those services. Under this
proposed rule, a vessel owner or operator of a vessel who has been
issued a waiver by DOT to perform aquaculture support operations will
be required to notify and provide a copy of the waiver to the Coast
Guard. Through this rulemaking, we also propose to establish
operational and geographic requirements for a vessel that is issued a
waiver by DOT to perform aquaculture support operations. For more
information on these requirements, refer to Sec.  106.120 Operational
and Geographic Requirements.
Affected Population
    The Coast Guard determined the affected population based on the
number of waiver requests from vessel owners and operators. Since the
2010 CBP ruling, only one entity has applied for waivers for foreign-
flagged wellboats to treat salmon. This U.S. entity operates two
foreign-flagged wellboats, and we anticipate that this entity will
continue to apply for waivers in the future. Therefore, this proposed
rule is projected to affect one U.S. entity that operates two vessels.
Depending on the growth of the salmon aquaculture industry, there is
the potential for the number of affected vessels to increase in the
future. However, current trends indicate no increase in growth in the
salmon aquaculture industry. Therefore, we did not consider, in this
analysis, an annual increase in the number of waivers that would be
submitted to the Coast Guard.
Costs
    In this proposed rule, owners or operators of foreign-flagged
vessels, which are issued waivers by DOT to conduct certain aquaculture
support operations, must notify the Coast Guard that such waivers have
been issued. The costs of this proposed rule include the costs to the
industry to provide copies of the waivers and the costs to the
Government to process the information. Waivers will be issued on an
annual basis per DOT requirements. Owners or operators of the vessels
are required to provide copies of these waivers to the Coast Guard
annually. Waivers are issued individually for each vessel involved in
aquaculture support operations, and therefore, costs are estimated on a
per vessel basis.
Industry Costs
    The Coast Guard estimates it will take 0.5 hours for a legal
secretary to copy and send each waiver to the Coast Guard, via postal
mail and electronic mail. The wage rate for a legal assistant was
obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), using
Occupational Series 23-2011, Paralegals and Legal Assistants (May
2013). BLS reports that the mean hourly rate for a legal assistant is
$24.60.\2\ To account for employee benefits, we use the load factor of
1.43, which we calculated from June 2014 BLS data.\3\ The loaded wage
rate for a legal assistant is estimated at $35.18 per hour ($24.60 wage
rate x 1.43 load factor). The expected cost to industry to provide
copies of the waiver is $35.18 ($35.18 x 0.5 hours x 2 vessels). Table
2 shows the total 10-year cost of two affected vessels to be $247.09
and annualized cost of $35.18, both discounted at 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mean wage, http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes232011.htm.
    \3\ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation news release text
provides information on the employer compensation, and can be found
at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09102014.htm.

                                     Table 2--Total 10 Year Cost to Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Discount rate
                                Year                                    Undiscounted   -------------------------
                                                                           costs             7%           3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................................................             $35.18       $32.88       $34.16
2..................................................................              35.18        30.73        33.16
3..................................................................              35.18        28.72        32.19
4..................................................................              35.18        26.84        31.26
5..................................................................              35.18        25.08        30.35
6..................................................................              35.18        23.44        29.46
7..................................................................              35.18        21.91        28.60
8..................................................................              35.18        20.48        27.77
9..................................................................              35.18        19.14        26.96
10.................................................................              35.18        17.88        26.18
    Total..........................................................             351.80       247.09       300.09
Annualized.........................................................  .................        35.18        35.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Government Costs
    The Coast Guard estimates it will take 0.5 hours per vessel for
Coast Guard personnel at the GS-13 level to record the information from
the waivers. The fully loaded wage rate for a GS-13 is $80, per
Commandant Instruction 7310.1P.\4\ The total cost for the Coast Guard
is $80 [(0.5 hours [sec] $80) x 2 vessels]. The total 10-year
undiscounted Government cost of the proposed rule is $800. Table 3
shows the total Government 10-year discounted cost at $561.89, and the
annualized cost at $80, both discounted at 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_
7310_1P.pdf.

                                         Table 3--Total Government Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Discount rate
                                Year                                    Undiscounted   -------------------------
                                                                           costs             7%           3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................................................             $80.00       $74.77       $77.67
2..................................................................              80.00        69.88        75.41
3..................................................................              80.00        65.30        73.21
4..................................................................              80.00        61.03        71.08
5..................................................................              80.00        57.04        69.01
6..................................................................              80.00        53.31        67.00
7..................................................................              80.00        49.82        65.05
8..................................................................              80.00        46.56        63.15
9..................................................................              80.00        43.51        61.31
10.................................................................              80.00        40.67        59.53
    Total..........................................................             800.00       561.89       682.42
Annualized.........................................................  .................        80.00        80.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

    Table 4 displays the total costs on an undiscounted basis, and
discounted at 7 percent and 3 percent interest rates, respectively. The
total 10-year undiscounted cost of the proposed rule is $1,151.80. The
total 10-year (industry and government) discounted cost of the proposed
rule is $808.98 and the annualized cost is $115.18, both discounted at
7 percent.

                Table 4--Total Costs of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Total, discounted
             Year                Total undiscounted  -------------------
                                        costs            7%        3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................               $115.18   $107.64   $111.83
2.............................                115.18    100.60    108.57
3.............................                115.18     94.02    105.41
4.............................                115.18     87.87    102.34
5.............................                115.18     82.12     99.36
6.............................                115.18     76.75     96.46
7.............................                115.18     71.73     93.65
8.............................                115.18     67.04     90.92
9.............................                115.18     62.65     88.28
10............................                115.18     58.55     85.70
    Total.....................              1,151.80    808.98    982.51
Annualized....................  ....................    115.18    115.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Benefits
    This proposed rule does not provide any quantitative benefits.
However, it does have a qualitative benefit. It provides the Coast
Guard with greater maritime domain awareness through the proposed
requirement that an owner or operator of a vessel who has received a
waiver from DOT must submit a copy of the waiver to the Coast Guard.
The requirement to submit a copy of the waiver to the Coast Guard will
ensure that appropriate Coast Guard officials are aware that foreign-
flagged vessels or vessels with only registry endorsements are
conducting aquaculture support activities in U.S waters pursuant to a
waiver issued by DOT under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 12102(d)(1).

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed 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.
    There is one U.S. entity that operates two foreign-flagged vessels
that would be affected by this rulemaking at this time. This entity is
neither a not-for-profit nor a governmental organization. The North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for this entity is
424460, Fish and Seafood Merchant Wholesalers. An entity with this
NAICS code is considered a small entity if it has less than 100
employees. Using the small entity definition for the NAICS code, we
determined the entity is classified as a small entity, since this
entity has 40 employees. Table 5 shows information on the U.S. entity
classified as a small entity by NAICS code, and the small entity
standard size established by the Small Business Administration.

                              Table 5--NAICS Code and Small Entities Size Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            NAICS Code                           Description                   Small business size standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
424460............................  Fish and Seafood Merchant             Less than 100 employees.
                                     Wholesalers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reviewed business revenue data provided by a publicly available
source \5\ and found that this entity has annual revenue estimated at
$4,800,000. Therefore, the expected burden on the company from this
rulemaking is estimated at less than 0.001 percent of total annual
revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ MANTA (http:// www.manta.com/ ) is an online business
service directory and search engine that provides business revenue
and size data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think
that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree
this proposed rule would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If you
think that the proposed rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult
with the Coast Guard personnel listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for a new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. This
collection is explained below under ESTIMATE OF TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN. As
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other,
similar actions. The title and description of the information
collections, a description of those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of
data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection.
    Under the provisions of the proposed rule, an owner or operator of
a vessel who is issued a waiver to conduct certain aquaculture support
operations would notify the Coast Guard that such a waiver has been
issued.
    Title: Requirements for Vessels that Perform Certain Aquaculture
Support Operations
    Summary of the Collection of Information: An owner or operator of a
vessel who is issued a waiver to conduct certain aquaculture support
operations would be required to notify the Coast Guard that such a
waiver has been issued.
    Need for Information: This information is necessary to ensure that
appropriate Coast Guard officials are aware that foreign-flagged
vessels or documented vessels with only registry endorsements are
conducting aquaculture support activities in U.S. waters pursuant to
waivers issued by DOT under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 12102(d)(1).
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard would use this
information to ensure vessels operating in U.S. waters in support of
aquaculture are compliant with DOT's requirement.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are owners or
operators of vessels that are issued waivers to conduct certain
aquaculture support operations.
    Number of Respondents: The number of respondents is one per year.
    Frequency of Response: Waivers are issued on an annual basis, so
the frequency of response is one response per vessel, per year.
    Burden of Response: The estimated burden for each respondent is 0.5
hours per vessel to copy waivers and send information to the Coast
Guard.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: There is currently one entity
operating two vessels that have been issued waivers. The total annual
burden would be 1 hour (0.5 hours x 2 vessels). Assuming this task is
performed by a legal assistant at a loaded hourly rate of $35.18, the
annual cost burden for this requirement is $35.18 ($35.18 loaded wage
rate x 1 total entity hours).
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine--
    (1) How useful the information is;
    (2) Whether it can help us perform our functions better;
    (3) Whether it is readily available elsewhere;
    (4) How accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
    (5) How valid our methods for determining burden are;
    (6) How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information; and
    (7) How we can minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them to both OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You are not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before we
could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve our request to collect this
information.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed

this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements
described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    This proposed rule implements Section 901(c) of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010. Section 901(c) amends Section 12102 of
Chapter 121 of 46 U.S.C. by adding a waiver of certain Federal vessel
documentation requirements for vessels performing aquaculture support
operations. Neither Section 901 nor Chapter 121 contains authority for
States to waive Federal vessel documentation requirements.
Additionally, while Chapter 121 does not expressly prohibit States from
having state titling systems, vessels that are required to be
documented under Chapter 121 cannot be simultaneously titled by a State
or numbered by a State pursuant to Chapter 123 (see 46 U.S.C. Section
12106). Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of
federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications
and preemptive effect, E.O. 13132 specifically directs agencies to
consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process.
If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism under
E.O. 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This
proposed 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.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O.
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.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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 E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272
note directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB,
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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f, and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' section of this preamble. This proposed rule involves
vessels that have received waivers from the DOT to perform certain
aquaculture support operations in U.S. waters (or could receive such
waivers in the future) and the Coast Guard's notification and
documentation requirements for those vessels. The proposed rule entails
administrative activities, which pertain to regulations concerning
documentation of vessels, and collectively appear to fall under section
2.B.2 and Figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (d) of the Instruction. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact resulting from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 106

    Aquaculture operations, Coastwise, Fishing vessels, Registry
endorsement, Waiver.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to add 46 CFR part 106 to read as follows:
    Title 46--Shipping

PART 106--REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-QUALIFIED VESSELS THAT PERFORM
CERTAIN AQUACULTURE SUPPORT OPERATIONS

Sec.
106.100 Purpose.
106.105 Applicability.
106.110 Definitions.
106.115 Notification requirements.
106.120 Operational and geographic requirements.
106.125 Penalties.

    Authority: Sec. 901(c)(2), Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905,
Title IX; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  106.100  Purpose.

    The regulations in this part implement 46 U.S.C. 12102(d).

Sec.  106.105  Applicability.

    The regulations in this part apply to a documented vessel with only
a registry endorsement or a foreign-flagged vessel that has been issued
a waiver by DOT under 46 U.S.C. 12102(d)(1), for the purpose of
conducting aquaculture support operations.

Sec.  106.110  Definitions.

    For the purpose of this part:
    Aquaculture support operations means activities that treat
aquaculture fish for or protect aquaculture fish from disease,
parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health.

Sec.  106.115  Notification requirements.

    (a) Prior to operating in U.S. waters, a vessel owner, operator, or
charterer that has been issued a waiver by DOT to conduct aquaculture
support operations must notify the Coast Guard in writing of its
status. The notification must include the following information:
    (1) The vessel(s) name(s);
    (2) The vessel's official and/ or International Maritime
Organization number;
    (3) The geographic location within the waters of the United States
where the vessel(s) will conduct treatment operations;
    (4) The period of time during which the waiver for the vessel(s) is
approved including:
    (i) The start date (MM/ DD/ YYYY); and
    (ii) The expiration date (MM/ DD/ YYYY); and
    (5) A copy of the DOT-approved aquaculture waiver.
    (b) Written notification must be made to the Commandant (CG-CVC),
ATTN: Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard Stop
7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-
7501, or by email to CG-CVC-3@ uscg.mil.

Sec.  106.120  Operational and geographic requirements.

    (a) Vessels with a DOT waiver, issued under 46 U.S.C. 12102(d)(1),
for the purpose of performing aquaculture support operations are
subject to the following restrictions:
    (1) Commercial operations other than operations that treat or
protect aquaculture fish are prohibited;
    (2) While conducting aquaculture support operations, vessels will
operate solely within the geographic location identified in the
approved waiver issued by DOT; and
    (3) Vessels will not conduct aquaculture support operations beyond
the period of time approved in the waiver issued by DOT.
    (b) Vessels conducting aquaculture support operations will, at all
times, maintain a copy of the waiver issued by DOT on board the vessel
as proof of its eligibility to conduct aquaculture support operations.

Sec.  106.125  Penalties.

    A vessel owner, operator, or charterer not operating a vessel as
required in this part is subject to penalty under 46 U.S.C. 12151.

    Dated: July 23, 2015.
V.B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-18620 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P