[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58538-58542]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0549-200742; FRL-8482-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: Redesignation of
Murray County, GA, 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for
Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on
June 15, 2007, from the State of Georgia, through the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (EPD), to redesignate the Murray
County 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Murray County
8-hour nonattainment ozone area is a partial county area, comprised of
the portion of Murray County that makes up the Chattahoochee National
Forest (Murray County Area). EPA's approval of the redesignation
request is based on the determination that the Murray County Area has
met the criteria for redesignation to attainment set forth in the Clean
Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the Murray County Area
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA is approving
a revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) including the
8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Murray County Area that contains
the new 2018 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Through this
action, EPA is also finding the 2018 MVEBs adequate for the purposes of
transportation conformity.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective November 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0549. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the

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

copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
Ms. Harder can be reached via telephone number at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for the Actions?
II. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
III. Why Are We Taking These Actions?
IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for the Actions?

    On June 15, 2007, Georgia, through the GA EPD, submitted a request
to redesignate Murray County to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard, and for EPA approval of the Georgia SIP revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Murray County Area. In an action published on
August 29, 2007 (72 FR 49679), EPA proposed to approve the
redesignation of Murray County to attainment. EPA also proposed
approval of Georgia's plan for maintaining the 8-hour NAAQS as a SIP
revision, and proposed to approve the 2018 regional MVEBs for the
Murray County Area that were contained in the maintenance plan. In the
August 29, 2007, proposed action, EPA also provided information on the
status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for the
Macon Area MVEBs. EPA received no comments on the August 29, 2007,
proposal.
    In this action, EPA is also finalizing its determination that the
new regional MVEBs for the Macon Area are adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. The MVEBs included in the maintenance plan are as
follows:

                        Murray County 2018 MVEBs
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOCs......................................  0.0117
NOX.......................................  0.0129
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's adequacy public comment period on these MVEBs (as contained
in Georgia's submittal) began on June 21, 2007, and closed on July 23,
2007. No comments were received during EPA's adequacy public comment
period. Through this Federal Register notice, EPA is finding the 2018
regional MVEBs, as contained in Georgia's submittal, adequate. These
MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria contained in the Transportation
Conformity Rule. The new regional MVEBs must be used for future
transportation conformity determinations.
    As was discussed in greater detail in the August 29, 2007,
proposal, this redesignation is for the 8-hour ozone designations
finalized in 2004 (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2007). Various aspects of
EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule were challenged in court
and on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated EPA's Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April
30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA,
472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit Court clarified that the
Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the Rule
that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified
under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions
reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, remain
effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's rejection of
EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that
had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th decision affirmed
the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed to
retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-
backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS. The June 8th decision clarified that the Court's reference to
conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to
requiring the continued use of 1-hour MVEBs until 8-hour budgets were
available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already
required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified
that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-
backsliding purposes.
    With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under
the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8th decision clarified that
for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their 1-hour maintenance plans,
anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used
for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets.
To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must
continue to comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity
regulations at 40 CFR Part 93. The Murray County Area was never
designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and thus does
not have 1-hour MVEBs to consider.
    For the above reasons, and those set forth in the August 29, 2007,
proposal for the redesignation of the Murray County Area, EPA does not
believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to
this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of Murray County to
attainment. Even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is
appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and
longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.

II. What Actions Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's redesignation
request and to change the legal designation of the Murray County Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Murray
County Area is comprised of the portion of Murray County that makes up
the Chattahoochee National Forest. EPA is also approving Georgia's 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan for the Murray County Area (such approval
being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status).
The maintenance plan is designed to help keep Murray County in
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. These approval
actions are based on EPA's determination that Georgia has demonstrated
that the Murray County Area has met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the CAA, including a demonstration that the
Murray County Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's
analyses of Georgia's 8-hour ozone redesignation request and

maintenance plan are described in detail in the proposed rule published
August 29, 2007 (72 FR 49679).
    Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving
also includes 2018 regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for the
Murray County Area. In this action, EPA is approving these 2018 MVEBs.
For regional emission analysis years that involve years prior to 2018,
there are no applicable budgets (for the purpose of conducting
transportation conformity analyses), so the transportation conformity
partners should consult with the area's interagency consultation group
to determine the appropriate interim tests to use. For regional
emission analysis years that involve the year 2018 and beyond, the
applicable budgets, for the purpose of conducting transportation
conformity analyses, are the new 2018 MVEBs. In this action, EPA is
also finding adequate and approving the Murray County Area's new
regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs.

III. Why Are We Taking These Actions?

    EPA has determined that the Murray County Area has attained the 8-
hour ozone standard and has also determined that Georgia has
demonstrated that all other criteria for the redesignation of the
Murray County Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS have been met. See section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also
taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for Murray County
as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and 107(d) of the CAA.
Furthermore, EPA is finding adequate and approving the new 2018
regional MVEBs contained in Georgia's maintenance plan because these
MVEBs are consistent with maintenance for the Murray County Area. In
the August 29, 2007, proposal to redesignate Murray County, EPA
described the applicable criteria for redesignation to attainment and
its analysis of how those criteria have been met. The rationale for
EPA's findings and actions is set forth in the proposed rulemaking and
summarized in this final rulemaking.

IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of the Murray County Area, Georgia for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at
40 CFR part 81. The approval also incorporates into the Georgia SIP a
plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Murray County through
2018. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy
future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes regional
MVEBs for the year 2018 for Murray County.

V. Final Action

    After evaluating Georgia's redesignation request, EPA is taking
final action to approve the redesignation and change the legal
designation of Murray County, Georgia from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is also approving
into the Georgia SIP the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Murray
County Area, which includes the new regional 2018 MVEBs of 0.0117 tpd
for VOCs, and 0.0129 tpd for NOX. EPA is also finding
adequate and approving the new 2018 regional MVEBs contained in
Georgia's maintenance plan for the Murray County Area. If
transportation conformity is implemented in this area, the Georgia
transportation partners will need to use these new MVEBs pursuant to 40
CFR 93.104(e) as effectively amended by section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA
as added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law
on August 10, 2005.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources or
allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk
or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 17, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: October 4, 2007.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570 is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ``26. Murray County 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      State submittal date/effective date    EPA approval date
            provision              nonattainment area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
26. Murray County 8-hour Ozone    Murray County......  June 15, 2007........................  October 16, 2007
 Maintenance Plan.                                                                             [Insert first
                                                                                page of
                                                                                publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.311, the table entitled ``Georgia-Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Monroe County
(part),'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.311  Georgia.

* * * * *

                                                                      Georgia-Ozone
                                                                    [8-Hour standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation \a\                                     Category/classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Murray Co (Chattahoochee Nat Forest),        11/15/07  Attainment...............................
 GA: Murray County (part).
The area enclosed to the east by Murray
 County's eastern border, to the north
 by latitude of 34.9004 degrees, to the
 west by longitude 84.7200 degrees, and
 to the south by 34.7040 degrees. All
 mountain peaks within the Chattahoochee
 National Forest area of Murray County
 that have an elevation greater than or
 equal to 2,400 feet and that are
 enclosed by contour lines that close on
 themselves.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-20340 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26061-26062]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10542]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66865; File No. SR-MSRB-2012-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Establishment of a Subscription to Historical Information and Documents
Submitted to the MSRB's Short-Term Obligation Rate Transparency System

April 26, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On February 27, 2012, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish a subscription to
historical information and documents submitted to the MSRB's Short-Term
Obligation Rate Transparency System. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 12, 2012.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66521 (March 6,
2012), 77 FR 14572 (the Commission's Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Description of Proposal

    In January 2009, the MSRB implemented an electronic system to
collect and disseminate information about securities bearing interest
at short-term rates and making such information and documents publicly
available through a dissemination service (``SHORT System''). In May
2011, MSRB enhanced the SHORT System to add documents to the
information collected and disseminated. Information and documents
collected by the SHORT System are made available for free on the MSRB's
Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA[supreg]) Web site pursuant to
the EMMA short-term obligation rate transparency service.\4\ MSRB also
makes the information and documents collected by the SHORT System
available through a subscription service, which is available for an
annual fee of $10,000. The proposed rule change would clarify that
subscribers to the SHORT subscription service would be able to access
historical data for the most recent six months on a daily rolling basis
and establish purchase agreements for historical products consisting of
twelve consecutive complete month data sets of the documents and
related indexing information collected by the SHORT System (the ``SHORT
Historical Data Product'') dating to January 30, 2009.\5\ The purpose
of the proposed rule change is to provide another avenue for obtaining
the information and documents provided through the SHORT subscription
service, which is currently only available on a current basis through
the real-time data stream. A more complete description of the proposal
is contained in the Commission's Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59212 (January 7,
2009).
    \5\ The SHORT Subscriber Manual provides a complete, up-to-date
listing of all data elements made available through the SHORT
Subscription Service. The information provided in the SHORT
Historical Data Product are the same as those currently provided in
the SHORT Subscription Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change
and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB.\6\ In particular, the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act,
which provides that the MSRB's rules shall be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, and, in general, to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is also consistent with Section
15B(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Exchange Act, which provides that the MSRB
shall not be prohibited from charging commercially reasonable fees for
automated subscription-based feeds or similar services, or for charging
for other data or document-based services customized upon request of
any person, made available to commercial enterprises, municipal
securities market professionals, or the general public, whether
delivered through the Internet or any other means, that contain all or
part of the documents or information, subject to approval of the fees
by the Commission under Section 19(b).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change would establish a
subscription service that would make information collected by the SHORT
System available to market participants as an additional avenue for
obtaining information that is submitted to the EMMA short-term
obligation rate transparency service. Broad access to the information
collected by the SHORT

System, in addition to the public access through the EMMA short-term
obligation rate transparency service web portal, should further assist
in preventing fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by
improving the opportunity for public investors to access material
information about SHORT System disclosure information. The proposed
rule change also provides for commercially reasonable fees to partially
offset costs associated with operating the SHORT System and producing
and disseminating information products to purchasers.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2012-03) be,
and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10542 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 23 (Friday, February 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8328-8330]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0703]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Gasparilla Marine Parade; Hillsborough
Bay; Tampa, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary special
local regulation for the 2021 Gasparilla Marine Parade on the waters of
Hillsborough Bay in the vicinity of Tampa, Florida. This event is
expected to attract over 600 spectator craft along the parade route,
with approximately 18 vessels participating in the official flotilla.
This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of public, the
official flotilla, and spectator vessels before, during, and after the
parade. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0703 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Marine Science Technician First
Class Michael D. Shackleford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention
Department, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On November 23, 2020, Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla notified the
Coast Guard that it will be rescheduling the Gasparilla Invasion and
Parade from its normal day in Janaury, to April 17, 2021, from 11:30 to
2:00 p.m. The event will occur on certain waters of Hillborough bay,
Tampa, Florida. The Captain of the Port St. Petersburg (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the large gathering
of vessels during the parade would be a safety concern for anyone
within the event area.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of public,
the official flotilla, and spectator vessels on these navigable waters
of the United States before, during, and after the scheduled event. The
Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a special local regulation from
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on April 17, 2021. The special local regulation
would cover certain waters of Hillsborough Bay in Tampa, Florida and
set forth specific requirements for vessels operating within the
regulated area during the period of enforcement. Persons and vessels
not meeting the requirements of this regulation may request
authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of
the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated
representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special
local regulations by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, and/or on-scene designated representatives.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) The special
local regulation will be enforced for only nine hours; (2) although
certain persons and vessels are prohibited to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization
from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated
representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the
enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the special local regulations to the local maritime
community by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to
Mariners; and (4) persons and vessels not meeting the requirements of
this regulation may request authorization to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the
Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),

we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule.
If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special
local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L(60a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T07-0703 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T07-0703  Special Local Regulation; Gasparilla Marine Parade;
Hillsborough Bay; Tampa, FL.

    (a) Regulated Areas: (1) Waters of Hillsborough Bay and its
tributaries north of 27[deg]51'18'' N and south of the John F. Kennedy
Bridge: Hillsborough Cut ``D'' Channel, Seddon Channel, Sparkman
Channel and the Hillsborough River south of the John F. Kennedy
Bridge,Tampa, Florida. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83.
    (2) All navigable waters within a 100 yards around the vessel JOSE
GASPAR while docked at the Tampa Yacht Club and Tampa Convention
Center, Tampa, Florida.
    (3) When within the marked channels of the parade route, vessels
participating in the Gasparilla Marine Parade may not exceed the
minimum speed necessary to maintain steerage.
    (b) Special Local Regulations. (1) All vessels within the regulated
area in paragraph (a) of this section must stay 50 feet away from and
give way to all officially entered vessels in parade formation in the
Gasparilla Marine Parade.

    (2) Jet skis and vessels without mechanical propulsion are
prohibited from the parade route.
    (3) Vessels less than 10 feet in length are prohibited from the
parade route unless capable of safely participating.
    (4) Vessels found to be unsafe to participate at the discretion of
a present law enforcement officer are prohibited from the parade route.
    (5) Northbound vessels in excess of 65 feet in length without
mooring arrangement made prior to the date of the event are prohibited
from entering Seddon Channel, unless the vessel is officially entered
in the Gasparilla Marine Parade.
    (6) Vessels not officially entered in the Gasparilla Marine Parade
may not enter the parade staging area box within the following
coordinates: 27[deg]53'53'' N, 082[deg]27'47'' W; 27[deg]53'22'' N,
082[deg]27'10'' W; 27[deg]52'36'' N, 082[deg]27'55'' W; 27[deg]53'02''
N, 082[deg]28'31'' W.
    (7) Designated representatives may control vessel traffic
throughout the enforcement area as determined by the prevailing
conditions.
    (8) Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas by contacting
the COTP St. Petersburg by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is
granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must
comply with the instructions of the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6
p.m. on April 17, 2021.

    Dated: January 13, 2021.
Matthew A. Thompson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2021-02172 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 110 (Monday, June 8, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34648-34650]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA included flood hazard
mapping data dissemination determinations as part of the NFIP
Nationwide Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, published on
November 3, 2017, and completed in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act implementing
regulations in 40 CFR 1500 through 1508 and therefore has determined
that this action will not have a significant effect on the human
environment.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                           Location of referenced   (NAVD) # Depth in
            Flooding sources                     elevation          feet above ground     Communities affected
                                                                      - Elevation in
                                                                       meters (MSL)
                                                                         modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas
                                       Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-7748 and B-7765
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar River............................  Approximately at 149th                  +101  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Avenue SE.                                    King County, City of
                                                                                Renton.
                                         Approximately 350 feet                  +528
                                          upstream of Landsburg
                                          Road SE.
Green River............................  Approximately at Fort                    +24  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Dent Park Road.                               King County, City of
                                                                                Auburn, City of Kent,
                                                                                City of Renton, City of
                                                                                Seatac, City of Tukwila.
                                         Approximately 0.48 miles                 +74
                                          downstream of SR 18.
North Creek............................  Approximately 690 feet                   +34  City of Bothell, City of
                                          upstream of NE 195th                          Woodinville.
                                          Street, landward of east
                                          levee.
                                         Approximately at SR 522,                 +34
                                          east of I-405, landward
                                          of east levee.
                                         Approximately 820 feet                   +42
                                          upstream of North Creek
                                          Parkway, landward of
                                          east levee.
North Creek............................  Approximately 100 feet                   +36  City of Bothell.
                                          upstream of N 195th
                                          Street, landward of west
                                          levee.
                                         Approximately 820 feet                   +42
                                          upstream of North Creek
                                          Parkway, landward of
                                          west levee.
Patterson Creek........................  Approximately 600 feet                   +86  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of SR 202, near                      King County.
                                          confluence with
                                          Snoqualmie R.
                                         Approximately .31 miles                 +160
                                          upstream of SR 202 past
                                          Patterson Creek Overflow.
Snoqualmie River.......................  Approximately at the King                +50  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          County/Snohomish County                       King County, City of
                                          boundary.                                     Carnation, City of
                                                                                Duvall, City of
                                                                                Snoqualmie.
                                         Approximately 0.5 miles                 +125
                                          downstream from
                                          Snoqualmie Dam.
Springbrook Creek......................  Approximately 0.44 miles                 +24  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of SW 7th                          King County, City of
                                          Street Bridge.                                Renton, City of Tukwila.
                                         Approximately 250 feet                   +30
                                          downstream of the City
                                          of Renton/City of Kent
                                          boundary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
# Depth in feet above ground.
- Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Auburn
Maps are made available for inspection at City Hall Annex, Planning & Development Department, Permit Center, 1
 East Main Street, 2nd Floor, Auburn, WA 98001.

City of Bothell
Maps are made available for inspection at City Hall, 18415 101st Avenue Northeast, Bothell, WA 98011.

City of Carnation
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 4621 Tolt Avenue, Carnation, WA 98014.

City of Duvall

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 15535 Main Street Northeast, Duvall, WA 98019.

City of Kent
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032.

City of Renton
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.

City of Seatac
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 4800 South 188th Street, Seatac, WA 98188.

City of Snoqualmie
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 38624 Southeast River Street, Snoqualmie, WA 98065.

City of Tukwila
Maps are available for inspection at Public Works Department, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188.

City of Woodinville
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 17301 133rd Avenue Northeast, Woodinville, WA 98072.

Unincorporated Areas of King County
Maps are available for inspection at Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources
 Division, 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98104.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-10102 Filed 6-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42649-42651]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17705]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0497]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: Sea World San Diego Fireworks, Mission Bay; San
Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in support of a
fireworks display near the AVI Resort and Casino. This safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:00 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on September
2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-0497. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer David Varela, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
because publication of an NPRM would be impracticable. Immediate action
is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators, participants,
and others in the vicinity of the marine event on the dates and times
this rule will be in effect.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Publication of an NPRM would be
impracticable, since immediate action is needed to ensure the public's
safety.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Ports and Waterways Safety Act gives the Coast Guard authority
to create and enforce safety zones. The Coast Guard is establishing a
temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Lower Colorado
River in support of a fireworks show in the navigation channel of the
Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV. The fireworks show is being
sponsored by AVI Resort and Casino. The temporary safety zone will
include all navigable waters within 800 feet of the firing location
adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino. The temporary safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of the show's crew, spectators, and
participants of the event, participating vessels, and other vessels and
users of the waterway.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 8 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on September 2, 2012. The limits of the safety
zone include all navigable waters within 800 feet of the firing
location. The firing location will be on land, centered across from the
AVI Resort and Casino Cove in approximate position: 35[deg]00'55'' N,
114[deg]38'12'' W.
    This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
crews, spectators, and participants of the event and to protect other
vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative.
    U.S. Coast Guard personnel will enforce this safety zone. Other
Federal, State, or local agencies may assist the Coast Guard, including
the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Vessels or persons violating this rule may
be subject to both criminal and civil penalties.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is
based on the size, and location, and duration of the safety zone. The
zone encompasses an area that is only about a quarter mile in diameter,
and is located in an area that will not impact commercial vessels.
Additionally, the zone will only be in effect for one hour and 45
minutes, late at night when vessel traffic is low.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    (1) This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Colorado River from 8 p.m. to
9:45 p.m. on September 2, 2012.
    (2) This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
safety zone is very small, and will only be in effect for one hour and
45 minutes late in the evening when vessel traffic is low.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety
zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-499 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-499  Safety Zone; AVI Labor Day Fireworks, Colorado
River; Laughlin, NV.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone include all navigable
waters within 800 feet of the firing location. The firing location will
be on land, centered across

from the AVI Resort and Casino Cove in approximate position:
35[deg]00'55'' N, 114[deg]38'12'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
to 9:45 p.m. on September 2, 2012. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2012-17705 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Notices] [Page 44345] [FR Doc No: 2011-18741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1999-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration

for the State of Texas (FEMA-1999-DR), dated July 1, 2011, and related

determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 18, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and

Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration

for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the Hazard

Mitigation Grant Program for the following areas among those areas

determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a

major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 1, 2011.

    All counties in the State of Texas are eligible to apply for

assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis

Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster

Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance

Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and

Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing

Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other

Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially

Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2011-18741 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P