[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 56698]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Procedures
Advisory Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic
control procedures and practices for standardization, revision,
clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures.

DATES: The meeting will be held Monday, October 1, Tuesday, October 2,
and Wednesday, October 3, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Gaylord Hotel & Resort
National Harbor, MD 801355.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gary Norek, ATPAC Executive
Director, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App.2), notice is
hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held Monday, October 1,
Tuesday, October 2, and Wednesday, October 3, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m.
    The agenda for this meeting will cover a continuation of the
ATPAC's review of present air traffic control procedures and practices
for standardization, revision, clarification, and upgrading of
terminology and procedures. It will also include:
    1. Approval of Minutes;
    2. Submission and Discussion of Areas of Concern;
    3. Discussion of Potential Safety Items;
    4. Report from Executive Director;
    5. Items of Interest; and
    6. Discussion and agreement of location and dates for subsequent
meetings.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to attend
and persons desiring to present oral statements should notify Mr. Gary
Norek no later than September 28, 2012. Any member of the public may
present a written statement to the ATPAC at any time at the address
given above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2012-22575 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19515-19517]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31010; Amdt. No. 3637]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective April 13, 2015. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 13, 2015.

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

For Examination

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

Availability

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5

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

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2015.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 30 April 2015

Monterey, CA, Monterey Rgnl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28L, Amdt 1
Ontario, CA, Ontario Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 26R, Amdt 4
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16L, Amdt 3A
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16R, ILS RWY 16R (CAT
II), ILS RWY 16R (CAT III), ILS RWY 16R (SA CAT I), Amdt 16A
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, Amdt 7D
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16L, Amdt 2A
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16R, Amdt 2A
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34L, Amdt 2
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34R, Amdt 1
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16L, Amdt 1
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16R, Amdt 1
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34L, Amdt 1
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34R, Amdt 1
San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 28R, Amdt 3
Plainville, CT, Robertson Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig
Plainville, CT, Robertson Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, LDA Y RWY 19, Orig
Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, LDA Z RWY 19, Amdt 3
Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, ROSSLYN LDA RWY 19,
Amdt 15, CANCELED
Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, RNAV (RNP) RWY 19,
Amdt 2
Tampa, FL, Tampa Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 1L, ILS RWY 1L (SA CAT I), ILS
RWY 1L (CAT II), ILS RWY 1L (CAT III), Amdt 17
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5L, ILS RWY 5L (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 5L (CAT II), ILS RWY 5L (CAT III), Amdt 4
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5R, ILS RWY 5R (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 5R (CAT II), ILS RWY 5R (CAT III), Amdt 6
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 6
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23L, Amdt 6
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23R, Amdt 4
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 20
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5L, Amdt 3
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5R, Amdt 3
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 14, Amdt 3
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23L, Amdt 3

Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23R, Amdt 3
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 32, Amdt 3
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5L, Amdt 1
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5R, Amdt 1
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 14, Amdt 1
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23L, Amdt 1
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23R, Amdt 1
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 32, Amdt 1
Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (RNP)
Y RWY 30R, Orig
Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (RNP)
Y RWY 35, Amdt 2
Jackson, MS, Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers Intl, RADAR-1, Amdt 12
Canandaigua, NY, Canandaigua, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Dunkirk, NY, Chautauqua County/Dunkirk, VOR RWY 24, Amdt 8
Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, ILS OR LOC RWY 13R, Amdt 10
Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, NDB-B, Amdt 3
Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13R, Amdt 2
Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31L, Amdt 1
Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, VOR/DME-C, Amdt 1
Salem, OR, McNary Fld, ILS OR LOC Z RWY 31, Amdt 30
Salem, OR, McNary Fld, LOC/DME BC RWY 13, Amdt 8
Salem, OR, McNary Fld, LOC Y RWY 31, Amdt 3
Salem, OR, McNary Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 3
Rapid City, SD, Rapid City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 2B
Spearfish, SD, Black Hills-Clyde Ice Field, NDB-A, Amdt 1A
Spearfish, SD, Black Hills-Clyde Ice Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-C
Spearfish, SD, Black Hills-Clyde Ice Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-C
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 15, Amdt 24
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 15, Orig-D, CANCELED
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 11F, CANCELED
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, VOR/DME RWY 1, Orig

[FR Doc. 2015-08114 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76536-76539]
[DOCID:fr17de08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1001]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, Washington, DC,
Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VA, and Prince George's County, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone
encompassing certain waters of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. This
action is necessary to ensure the security of persons and property, and
to prevent terrorist acts or incidents before, during, and after
scheduled activities associated with the 2009 U.S. Presidential
Inauguration. This rule prohibits vessels and persons from entering the
security zone and requires vessels and persons in the security zone to
depart the security zone during the effective time frame, and to
immediately depart the security zone when requested to do so by
government authorities.

DATES: This rule is effective from 4 a.m. on January 14, 2009, through
10 p.m. on January 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-1001 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-1001 in the Docket
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at
two locations: The 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Commander, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road,

Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Ronald L. Houck, Waterways Management Division, at
410-576-2674 or 2693. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On October 27, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Security Zone; Potomac and Anacostia Rivers,
Washington, DC, Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VA, and Prince George's
County, MD'' in the Federal Register (73 FR 63663). We received one
letter commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard has determined that the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and
respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by
terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our
freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This proposed security
zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to
safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against
sabotage or terrorist attacks.
    The Captain of the Port Baltimore is proposing to establish a
security zone to address the aforementioned security concerns and to
take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack
against the large gatherings of high-ranking United States officials,
the public at large, and surrounding waterfront areas and communities
would have. The proposed security zone is necessary to safeguard life
and property on the navigable waters before, during, and after
scheduled activities associated with the 2009 U.S. Presidential
Inauguration and will help the Coast Guard prevent vessels or persons
from bypassing the security measures established on shore for the
events and engaging in waterborne terrorist actions during the highly-
publicized events.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received one comment in response to the NPRM. No
public meeting was requested and none was held. What follows is a
review of, and the Coast Guard's response to, the issues that were
presented by the commenter concerning the proposed regulations.
    The commenter, who was anonymous, stated that although they agree a
secure perimeter is needed for the U.S. Presidential Inauguration, they
do not agree that certain details of the security zone, such as the
enforcement period and boundaries, should be provided to the general
public beforehand. The commentor believes such information could be
used by an adversary to devise a plan to circumvent the government's
security efforts.
    The Administrative Procedures Act directs Federal agencies to
ensure that adequate notice is provided to the public concerning
actions that the Federal Government is considering for implementation.
In addition, we do not feel that issuing the proposed rule adversely
affects the patrol and enforcement of the security zone.

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.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. There is no vessel traffic associated
with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective
period, and vessels may seek permission from the Captain of the Port
Baltimore to enter and transit the zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to operate or transit on (1) all waters of the Potomac River, from
shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the north by the Francis Scott Key
(U.S. Route 29) Bridge, downstream to and bounded on the south from a
position at latitude 38[deg]46'42'' N, longitude 077[deg]02'55'' W on
the Virginia shoreline to a position at latitude 38[deg]46'42'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'33'' W on the Maryland shoreline, including the
waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin; and (2) all waters of the
Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the north by
the New York Avenue (U.S. Route 50) Bridge, downstream to and bounded
on the south by its confluence with the Potomac River. This security
zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because vessels with compelling interests that
outweigh the port's security needs may be granted waivers from the
requirements of the security zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have

determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this 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.

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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule establishes a security zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 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.T05-1001 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-1001  Security Zone; Potomac and Anacostia Rivers,
Washington, DC, Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VA, and Prince George's
County, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: (1) All waters
of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the north
by the Francis Scott Key (U.S. Route 29) Bridge, downstream to and
bounded on the south from a position at latitude 38[deg]46'42'' N,
longitude 077[deg]02'55'' W on the Virginia shoreline to a position at
latitude 38[deg]46'42'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'33'' W on the Maryland
shoreline, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin;
and
    (2) All waters of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline,
bounded on the north by the New York Avenue (U.S. Route 50) Bridge,
downstream to and bounded on the south by its confluence with the
Potomac River.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Maryland.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing security zones found in 33 CFR 165.33.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels
already at berth, mooring, or anchor at the time the security zone is
implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All vessels
underway within this security zone at the time it is implemented are to
depart the zone. The Captain of the Port Baltimore may, in his
discretion, grant waivers or exemptions to this rule, either on a case-
by-case basis or categorically to a particular class of vessel that
otherwise is subject to adequate control measures.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone must
first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or
his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area,
the Captain of the Port

Baltimore and his designated representatives can be contacted at
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel
16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be
contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or
local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means,
the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative and
proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while
within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 4 a.m.
on January 14, 2009, through 10 p.m. on January 25, 2009.

    Dated: December 5, 2008.
Austin J. Gould,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland,
Acting.
[FR Doc. E8-29726 Filed 12-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


                         Flucarbazone-sodium (114009)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                               Date: 7 May 2013

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
 Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
 Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
 Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
 Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
 Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
 Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
 Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
 Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
 Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
 Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
 USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2011.
 Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2011.
What are the limitations to the data?
 Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
 Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
 Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
 Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
 Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                         Flucarbazone-sodium (114009)
                               Date: 7 May 2013

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Flucarbazone-sodium (114009)
             Sorted Alphabetically  -  Reporting Time:  2004-2011

                             Percent Crop Treated
                                     Crop
                           Pounds Active Ingredient
                                    Average
                                    Maximum
                                       1
                                     Wheat
                                    30,000
                                       5
                                      10
                                       2
                                   + Fallow
                                    <500
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
All numbers rounded.

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research

  +  Fallow is not known to be listed on active end use product registrations or as Section 18 emergency exemptions when this
     report was run.

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.


[Federal Register: September 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 55392]
[DOCID:fr10se10-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62853; File No. 4-610]

 State of the Municipal Securities Market Field Hearings

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of field hearings.

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

SUMMARY: On May 7, 2010, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission Mary L. Schapiro, announced that Commissioner Elisse B.
Walter would lead an effort to gather facts, opinions and analyses
about the municipal securities market by holding a series of field
hearings across the country. A broad array of municipal market
participants representing diverse viewpoints will be invited to
participate in the field hearings by sharing their perspectives on
important topics relating to the municipal securities market.

DATES: The initial field hearing will be held on September 21, 2010 in
San Francisco, California and will be open to the public. The field
hearing will begin at 9 a.m. Over the next several months, the
Commission will hold four additional public field hearings in cities
across the country. Information regarding the dates and times of future
field hearings will be available on the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.sec.gov.

ADDRESSES: The September 21, 2010 field hearing will be held at the
Port of San Francisco, Pier 1, The Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA
94111. Information regarding the locations of future field hearings
will be available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
Comments relating to the state of the municipal securities market field
hearings may be filed electronically by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or through the comment form available at:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml. Transcripts of the field hearings
and all submitted comments will also be available on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.sec.gov. All comments received will be posted
without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia F. Goldin, Office of
Commissioner Elisse B. Walter, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Lesli Sheppard,
Office of Commissioner Elisse B. Walter, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Kayla
Gillan, Office of the Chairman, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 7, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22628 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


1 k:\ 0154 02 010\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd MEMORANDUM TO: Rhea Jones, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS ( C539 03)

FROM: Eric Goehl and Mike Heaney, Eastern Research Group ( ERG), Morrisville DATE: August 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Industry Trends of Major and Area Source Dry Cleaners 1.0 INTRODUCTION The dry cleaning industry is made up of both major and area sources. Major sources are defined in the NESHAP as those facilities that have dry to dry machines and use more than 2100 gallons of PCE annually or facilities that have dry to dry machines and transfer machines and use more than 1800 gallons of PCE annually. Major sources are a small fraction of the total population of the industry. The 15 major sources use approximately 2% of the total perchloroethylene ( PCE) used in the dry cleaning industry. Area sources are facilities that use less than the major source thresholds. In the NESHAP, area sources are divided into large and small areas sources based on PCE consumption. According to data from the U. S. Census there are approximately 32,000 dry cleaners. Approximately 27,000 of these dry cleaners use PCE as their main dry cleaning solvent. Except for the 15 major source PCE dry cleaners, the remainder of these facilities are area sources. In 2002, all dry cleaners used 3.5 million gallons of PCE ( TCATA, July 2003).

Major and area sources can have industrial, commercial, or speciality type operations ( i. e.,

leather garment cleaners). The industrial dry cleaners typically clean garments for large industries like the automotive producers. These garments include work gloves, aprons, and uniforms. The work gloves and aprons are often made of leather or other thick materials. Because of the heavy garment materials and the heavy staining of oil and grease, industrial and leather facilities typically use more PCE than a commercial cleaners that use similar sized and age of equipment. The 2 k:\ 0154 02 010\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd higher PCE usage in these facilities is the result of more PCE being retained in the heavy garments even after an extended drying cycle. For this reason the industrial and leather shops often have drying cycles of 45 minutes to hour and half compared to fifteen minute drying cycles for commercial facilities. Of the fifteen major source facilities, the four top PCE users are industrial facilities cleaning some percentage of leather and heavy work gloves. These four facilities use 65% of the total PCE of all the major sources. The commercial operations are the corner neighborhood dry cleaner. They typically clean garments from the public like pants, shirts,

dresses, comforters, curtains and linens. Most of the 27,000 area source facilities are commercial dry cleaners. The typical commercial dry cleaners often do not have processes to clean leather products. As a result they out source these products speciality leather cleaning shops.

2.0 NO NEW MAJOR SOURCES The 15 major source dry cleaning facilities are those facilities that were using 2100 gallons ( or 1800 gallons if using transfer machines) or more of PCE per year on or after the compliance date of September 23, 1996 for the NESHAP. Eight of 15 major source facilities are not currently using less than 2,100 gallons [ 1800 gallons] a year, however, because of the EPA " Once In Always In" policy, these facilities are still considered major sources.

In the future, the only major sources that we expect to see are the existing 15 facilities.

Based on the low emission rates of current PCE dry cleaning machines and the typical business models used in the industrial and commercial dry cleaning sectors, it is unlikely that any new major sources will be constructed or that any existing area sources will become major sources by the addition of new equipment. The current typical business model for major source facilities is picking up clothes for processing within a 250 mile radius of the facility and not across several states, this limits the amount of potential garments facilities can service ( Vantol, 2004). Most new dry cleaning machines have fourth generation ( dry to dry closed loop machines with refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber) emission controls. A typical new fourth generation machine can clean 800 pounds of garments per gallon of PCE. A new or existing source using this type of equipment would need to clean 840 tons of clothes to exceed the major source threshold of 2,100 gallons [ 2,100 gallons * 800 lb/ gallon * 1 ton/ 2000 lb = 840 tons]. 3 k:\ 0154 02 010\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd The largest dry cleaning facility in the U. S. , ALAC Garment Services, dry cleaned 893 tons in 2001. During our meeting with ALAC on November 19, 2002, their president stated that the cost of delivering cleaned garments over a large area limits the size of industrial dry cleaners.

It is unlikely that a facility could attain ALAC's size, either initially or with growth over time,

especially since volume in both the industrial and commercial sectors has been declining.

No new commercial facilities are expected to be major sources. New area sources allowed to install third generation machines ( dry to dry closed loop with refrigerated condenser)

under the current requirements of the NESHAP, would need to clean 525 tons of clothes to exceed the major source threshold of 2,100 gallons. This estimate is based on a typical performance of a new third generation machine of 500 pounds per gallon of PCE [ 2,100 gallons *

500 lb/ gallon * 1 ton/ 2000 lb = 525 tons].

The largest commercial dry cleaning source, Bergmann's Inc., dry cleaned 390 tons of garments in 2001. We do not anticipate that any facilities will clean as much as 525 tons of garments per year. Several dry cleaning chains have thirty to sixty storefronts, but the logistics of the commercial market make it uneconomical to clean clothes from a large network at a single location. They divide up the drop shops to send their clothes to be processed at several plants instead of one large plant. Therefore, it is also unlikely that a new facility in the commercial sector using third or fourth generation machines would exceed the major source threshold. New and existing commercial dry cleaning sources are and will be area sources.

3.0 INDUSTRY TRENDS In the early 1990' s when the NESHAP was developed, a majority of the dry cleaning machines at major and area sources were vented. Third generation ( non venting) machines were gaining popularity among major and area source dry cleaners. Fourth generation machines were just becoming available and few facilities had these machines. Currently, the majority of the national population of machines has shifted from vented machines to third generation. Table 1 shows the estimated percent distribution of dry cleaning machines in the nation. 4 k:\ 0154 02 010\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd Table 1. National Distribution of Machine Types*

Machines Estimated National Population ( Percent)**

Transfer 2 Vented 5 Third Generation 68 Fourth Generation 25 * Area Source Cost Memorandum, to be written Sept 2004. ** This estimated national population does not include state of New York, all of their facilities are required to have machines with secondary controls.

Even though the trend in the industry has been to replace transfer and vented machines with machines with better emission controls, there still are many transfer and vented machines being operated. The national population of PCE machines is 30,000 ( 27,000 facilities multiplied by 1.1 machines per facility), 2% or 600 of these machines are transfer and 5% or 1500 are vented machines still being used. Of the 2,100 transfer and vented machines still in operation, only two of those are major sources, using vented machines. This means that approximately 2,100 commercial and industry area sources could still be using transfer and vented machines ( almost 10% of the industry). These types of machines are relatively large emitters of PCE. Almost half the PCE consumption by the major sources is from the two facilities with vented machines. The economic life of dry to dry machines are approximately 10 to 15 years. The economic life for transfer machines is 5 years longer because they require less maintenance to keep them operating.

Facilities that are still operating vented and transfer machines past their economic life generally are unwilling or unable to raise the capital to replace their machines even though replacement would result in a net cost savings.

The majority of the new machines sold today are fourth generation machines. Vented and transfer machines are no longer sold. Because the requirements of the NESHAP allowing area sources to install third generation machines and because of the vast number of area sources, third generation machines are a large proportion of the population of the industry. Many area source dry cleaners are buying fourth generation machines over third because they are easier to operate,

use less PCE, and produce less hazardous waste than third generation equipment, but also because they recognize that fourth generation machines are likely what future regulations are going to require. Third generation machines are still being purchased. A machine manufacturer stated that 70% of the new PCE machines sold in 2000 were 4th generation and by 2003, nearly all of the PCE machines sold were fourth generation ( Firbimatic, 12 17 03). New York and, 5 k:\ 0154 02 010\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd beginning in 2007, California require fourth generation equipment for all existing major and area sources. Due to the vast number of area sources compared to major sources, the majority of the new PCE machines sold are to area sources to replace third generation machines.

The newest PCE machine technology is called fifth generation. These machines have a PCE analyzer in the drum, and a lock out system that will not unlock the drum door until the PCE concentration falls below a set point, typically 300 ppm. This technology is required at all dry cleaners in Germany. No major source dry cleaners in the United States utilize this technology.

A Canadian industrial facility uses fifth generation machines to clean leather gloves, aprons, and cotton uniforms. A handful of area source dry cleaners in the United States use fifth generation controls. Fifth generation equipment cost approximately $ 12,000 more than fourth generation equipment regardless of the capacity of the machine.

The number of dry cleaners replacing PCE operations with alternative technologies is growing. Approximately 85% of all dry cleaning machines use PCE. The remaining 15% of machines used other dry cleaning solvents, such as hydrocarbon blended solvents, GreenEarth ® ,

liquid CO 2 and wet cleaning ( Area Source Cost Memorandum, Sept 2004). The percent of alternative solvent machines has been growing over the last ten years. Just about five years ago in the late 1990s, the percent of facilities using alternative solvents was approximately 10%

( National Clothesline, July 1999). Currently hydrocarbon solvents are the most popular alternative solvent among dry cleaners. The higher percentage of dry cleaners using alternative technologies have been influenced by cleaners switching to avoid the current PCE regulations and others because of the threat of future regulations. In addition, some commercial property owners are requiring their dry cleaning tenants to replace their PCE machines with alternative solvents as a condition to renew their lease. Commercial building owners are concerned with the publicity of the potential health risks of PCE and do not want a PCE dry cleaner on their commercial property. The property owners are also concerned about potential future remediation of contaminated soil and ground water. Machine manufacturers estimate that 20 to 50% of the new machines purchased are alternative solvent technologies.

A trend developing in the last couple of years is for industrial dry cleaners to switch from PCE to hydrocarbon solvents. These dry cleaners are switching for many of the same reasons commercial cleaners are switching, but mainly because of the potential additional PCE regulations. In at least one case, these facilities have chosen Stoddard solvent, a Class II 6 k:\ 0154 02 010\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd hydrocarbon solvent ( i. e., lower flash point of 100 to 139

F), over synthetic hydrocarbon solvents like DF 2000, a Class III. A solvent ( i. e., lower flash point of 140 to 199

F). Stoddard solvent is more attractive to the industrial cleaner because it is more volatile, thus reducing the drying time compared to synthetic hydrocarbon solvents and because of its cleaning power as a solvent ( as measured by kB value). Industrial garments ( i. e., leather and heavy cotton gloves, leather aprons,

shop rags, etc.) cleaned with PCE require extended drying time, but even more so with hydrocarbon solvents.

Class IIIA Hydrocarbons, followed by wet cleaning, are the most popular alternative technologies in area source facilities. A recent decision by several states to switch from National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA) codes to the International Building Code ( IBC) has slowed the growth rate of hydrocarbon machines. Under the IBC requirements, hydrocarbons, with a flashpoint under 200

F are classified as flammable. However, it is possible that this part of the IBC may be changed or local waivers of it may become more common.

4.0 REFERENCES Haiges, Darrin, Firbimatic. Personal Communication with Eric Goehl. Subject: Population Distribution of 3rd and 4th generation Machines. December 17, 2003.

Memorandum. Heaney, Mike and Goehl, Eric. Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Dry Cleaning Residual Risk Project File. Area Source Cost Memorandum. TO BE DEVELOPED IN SEPT, 2004.

Transfer out, But perc is still in. National Clothesline. July 1999.

TCATA Reports 2002 Perc DryCleaning Demand. Textile Care Allied Trades Association. July 2003. < http:// www. TCATA. org..

Vantol, Jeff, White Tower. Personal Communication with Eric Goehl. Subject: Maximum Distance to Pick up Garments to Process. August 25, 2004.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12825-12826]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0077]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations, this document provides the public notice that by a
document dated December 5, 2011, the Central California Traction
Company (CCT) and the United Transportation Union (UTU) have jointly
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension
of their waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
hours of service laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4). FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0077.
    In their petition, CCT and UTU seek relief from 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(4), which, in part, requires a train employee to receive 48
hours off duty after initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive
days. Specifically, CCT and UTU seek an extension of the existing
waiver to allow a train employee to initiate an on-duty period for 6
consecutive days followed by 24 hours off duty. In support of their
request, CCT explained that the waiver allows for better flexibility
and responsiveness to its customers, and that FRA inspectors monitoring
CCT's operations have found no violations of the regulations. CCT also
stated that this type of schedule has not compromised rail safety.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by April 11, 2013 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 20, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-04245 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, on April 29, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a
Complaint in Center for Biological Diversity v. Jackson, No.
cv-10-1846-MMC (N.D. Cal.), against Lisa Jackson, in her official
capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(“EPA”).

WHEREAS, the Center for Biological Diversity therein alleged that EPA
failed to perform mandatory duties regarding a number of areas
designated as nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (“NAAQS”) for particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter (“PM-10”) within the States of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho,
Montana, and Nevada as required by the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or the
“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q.  Specifically, the Center for
Biological Diversity alleged that the Act required that EPA (1) make
determinations whether certain PM-10 nonattainment areas attained the
PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date; (2) impose sanctions on
two areas in Arizona for which EPA has made findings of failure by the
State of Arizona to submit complete PM-10 state implementation plan
(“SIP”) revisions, and promulgate Federal Implementation Plans
(“FIPs”) for these same two Arizona areas; and (3) issue a
determination that Montana has failed to submit complete SIPs for
certain PM-10 areas within the State.

WHEREAS, EPA has applied its “Clean Data Policy” interpretation of
the CAA in a number of attainment determination rulemakings for PM-10
nonattainment areas, thereby suspending for each area certain
attainment-related requirements set forth in the Act, including EPA’s
obligation to promulgate a FIP for such areas.  The rationale for
EPA’s interpretation is set forth in the proposed and final
determinations of attainment for the San Joaquin Valley PM-10
nonattainment area, 71 Fed. Reg. 40952 (July 19, 2006), 71 Fed. Reg.
63642 (Oct. 30, 2006), and 73 Fed. Reg. 14687 (Mar. 19, 2008), and in
the proposed and final determinations of attainment for the Coso
Junction PM-10 nonattainment area. 75 Fed. Reg. 13710 (Mar. 23, 2010)
and 75 Fed. Reg. 27944 (May 19, 2010).  The Ninth Circuit and the
Northern District of California have recently addressed these issues.
See Latino Issues Forum, et al. v. EPA, Case No. 06-75831 (9th Cir.) at
Docket No. 63-1 (order denying petition for review); Medical Advocates
for Healthy Air, et al. v. Johnson, No. C 06-00093 (N.D. Cal.) at Docket
No. 77 (order on summary judgment).

WHEREAS, on October 17, 2006, EPA published in the Federal Register a
final rule retaining the 24-hour-average PM-10 NAAQS but revoking the
annual PM-10 NAAQS, 71 Fed. Reg. 61144.

WHEREAS, on June 22, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register a
direct final rule stating its determination that the Sandpoint area in
Idaho attained the PM-10 NAAQS, 75 Fed. Reg. 35302.  EPA received no
comments on this rule, which became effective August 23, 2010.

WHEREAS, on July 16, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register a
direct final rule stating its determination that Mendenhall Valley,
Alaska attained the PM-10 NAAQS, 75 Fed. Reg. 41379.  EPA received no
comments on this action, which became effective without further notice
on September 14, 2010.

WHEREAS, on July 28, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register its
final determination that the Fort Hall PM-10 area in Idaho, attained the
PM-10 NAAQS, 75 Fed. Reg. 44142.  [fill in after 113(g) period]

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register a
direct final rule stating its final determination that the Las Vegas
planning area (Nevada) attained the PM-10 NAAQS, 75 Fed. Reg. 45485.
[fill in after 113(g) period]

WHEREAS, EPA asserts that the Lame Deer area and Ronan and Polson area
in Montana are located on tribal lands and, therefore, the State is not
required to submit a SIP for these areas.

WHEREAS, the Center for Biological Diversity and EPA have agreed to a
settlement of all claims raised in the Center for Biological
Diversity’s Complaint without admission of any issue of fact or law in
order to avoid protracted and costly litigation and to preserve judicial
resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, intending to be bound by this Agreement,
hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1.	EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register no later than
November 30, 2010, a notice of the Agency’s final determination under
42 U.S.C §§ 7509(c)(1) and 7513(b)(2) as to whether Eagle River,
Alaska attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, December 31, 1994, based on the area’s air quality as of that
attainment date.

2.	EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register no later than
July 29, 2011,   a notice of the Agency’s final determination under 42
U.S.C §§ 7509(c)(1) and 7513(b)(2) as to whether the Paul Spur/Douglas
planning area in Arizona attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, December 31, 1994, based on the area’s air
quality as of that attainment date.

3.	EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register no later than
January 29, 2011, a notice of the Agency’s final determination under
42 U.S.C §§ 7509(c)(1) and 7513(b)(2) as to whether the Nogales
planning area in Arizona attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, December 31, 1994, based on the area’s air
quality as of that attainment date.

4.	EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register no later than
November 29, 2010, a notice of the Agency’s final determination under
42 U.S.C §§ 7509(c)(1) and 7513(b)(2) as to whether the Hayden
planning area in Arizona attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, December 31, 1994, based on the area’s air
quality as of that attainment date.

5.	EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register no later than
January 17, 2011, a notice of the Agency’s final determination under
42 U.S.C §§ 7509(c)(1) and 7513(b)(2) as to whether the Columbia Falls
area in Flathead County, Montana attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, December 31, 1994, based on the area’s air
quality as of that attainment date.

6.	EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register no later than
January 17, 2011, a notice of the Agency’s final determination under
42 U.S.C §§ 7509(c)(1) and 7513(b)(2) as to whether the Libby and
vicinity areas of Lincoln County, Montana attained the 24-hour PM-10
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, December 31, 1994, based on the
area’s air quality as of that attainment date.

	7.	Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 11, EPA shall no later
than March 29, 2011, sign for publication in the Federal Register a
notice of the Agency’s final determination under 42 U.S.C §§
7509(c)(1) and 7513(b)(2) as to whether the Reno (Nevada) planning area,
which is classified as a “serious” PM-10 nonattainment area,
attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date,
December 31, 2001, based on the area’s air quality as of that
attainment date.

  	8.	Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 12, and subject to the
qualifications in Paragraph 20, EPA shall no later than July 27, 2012,
sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of the Agency’s
final rule promulgating a FIP under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1) addressing
the requirements under §§ 7513a(a)(1)(B) [attainment demonstration]
and (a)(1)(C) [reasonably available control measures] or 7509a(a)
[demonstration of attainment but for emissions emanating from outside
the United States] as they relate to the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS for the
Douglas portion of the Paul Spur/Douglas planning area.

	9.	Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 13, EPA shall no later
than July 27, 2012, sign for publication in the Federal Register a
notice of the Agency’s final rule promulgating a FIP under 42 U.S.C.
§ 7410(c)(1) addressing the requirements under §§ 7513a(a)(1)(B)
[attainment demonstration] and (a)(1)(C) [reasonably available control
measures] or 7509a(a) [demonstration of attainment but for emissions
emanating from outside the United States] as they relate to the 24-hour
PM-10 NAAQS for the Nogales planning area.

10.	The Parties may agree to extend any deadlines contained in this
Settlement Agreement by mutual written consent.

11.	If EPA signs a notice taking final action to approve the State of
Nevada’s submitted Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the
Reno Planning Area under 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(3)(D) and (d)(3)(E) before
the deadline in Paragraph 7 of this Settlement Agreement, then EPA’s
obligation under Paragraph 7 shall be voided.

12.	If, before the deadline in Paragraph 8 of this Settlement Agreement,
EPA signs a notice taking final action to (1) reclassify the Paul
Spur/Douglas planning area (or the Douglas planning area if EPA acts to
split the Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment area into two areas) as a
“serious” nonattainment area; (2) approve a submittal from the State
of Arizona of a SIP revision addressing the requirements under §§
7513a(a)(1)(B) [attainment demonstration] and (a)(1)(C) [reasonably
available control measures] or 7509a(a) [demonstration of attainment but
for emissions emanating from outside the United States]; or (3) approve
a redesignation request and maintenance plan under 42 U.S.C. §
7407(d)(3)(D) and (d)(3)(E); then EPA’s obligation under Paragraph 8
shall be voided.

13.	If EPA signs a notice taking final action to reclassify the Nogales
planning area as a “serious” nonattainment area or to approve a
submittal from the State of Arizona of a SIP revision addressing the
requirements under §§ 7513a(a)(1)(B) [attainment demonstration] and
(a)(1)(C) [reasonably available control measures] or 7509a(a)
[demonstration of attainment but for emissions emanating from outside
the United States] before the deadline in Paragraph 9 of this Settlement
Agreement, then EPA’s obligation under Paragraph 9 shall be voided.

14.	Within 15 business days following signature of such action required
by Paragraphs 1-13, EPA shall send notice of such action to the Office
of the Federal Register for review and publication.

15.	Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to limit or
modify any discretion accorded EPA by the CAA or by general principles
of administrative law.

16.	The Parties agree and acknowledge that EPA’s final approval of
this Settlement Agreement is subject to the requirements of CAA §
113(g), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g).  That subsection provides that notice of
this Settlement Agreement be given to the public, that the public shall
have a reasonable opportunity to make any comments, and that the
Administrator or the Attorney General, as appropriate, must consider
those comments in deciding whether to consent to this Settlement
Agreement.

17.	Except as set forth in this Agreement, the Parties retain all
rights, claims, defenses, and discretion they may otherwise have.

18.	EPA’s obligations under this Settlement Agreement are subject to
the availability of funds appropriated and legally available for such
purpose.  No provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be interpreted
as or constitute a commitment or requirement that EPA obligate or pay
funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or
any other provision of law.

19.	Within 10 days of signing this Settlement Agreement, the parties
agree to file a joint motion in the district court to administratively
close this case.  The Center for Biological Diversity shall file a
motion for voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, in accordance with Rule
41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jackson, No. cv-10-1846-MMC (N.D. Cal.), with
respect to all claims in the Complaint within 30 days after notice
appears in the Federal Register of EPA taking the last rulemaking action
required under Paragraphs 1-9 of this Settlement Agreement.  The Center
for Biological Diversity agrees and acknowledges that, if EPA fails to
meet its obligations under this Settlement Agreement, its sole remedy is
to reinstate this action.

20.	The Parties agree that if EPA signs a final attainment determination
in lieu of promulgating a FIP prior to the deadline for promulgation of
a FIP in Paragraph 8, then such action will not constitute a breach of
the Settlement Agreement.  Nevertheless, should EPA invoke its Clean
Data Policy and sign a final attainment determination in lieu of
promulgating a FIP, the Center for Biological Diversity reserves its
right to reinstate this action for the limited purpose of litigating the
question whether EPA is in violation of an alleged mandatory duty to
promulgate a FIP as required by CAA section 110(c)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. §
7410(c)(1)(A), for the Douglas area of Cochise County.  EPA in turn
reserves each of its defenses including, but not limited to, arguing
that the Center for Biological Diversity’s challenge is time-barred
and that such claim is reviewable exclusively in the court of appeals.

21.	The undersigned representative of each Party certifies that he or
she is fully authorized by the Party he represents to bind that Party to
the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

22.	Any written notices or other written communications between the
Parties contemplated under this Settlement Agreement shall be sent to
the undersigned counsel at the addresses listed in the signature blocks
below unless written notice of a change in counsel and/or address is
provided.

IGNACIA S. MORENO

Assistant Attorney General

							__________________________

ADAM J. KATZ

United States Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Environment Defense Section

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026

(202) 514-2689

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
COUNSEL FOR EPA

Dated:

__________________________

Robert Ukeiley

Law Office of Robert Ukeiley

435R Chestnut Street, Suite 1

Berea, Kentucky 40403

(859) 986-5402

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Kevin Bundy

Center for Biological Diversity

351 California St., Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 436-9682

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
COUNSEL FOR CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Dated:

 PAGE  9


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 3764]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-46-000]

Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC

Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on January 6, 2012, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission LLC (Kinder Morgan), Post Office Box 281304, Lakewood,
Colorado<PHONE_NUMBER>, filed in the above Docket, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.213 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for authorization to
increase the current certificated maximum injection and withdrawal
rates at the Huntsman Storage Facility located in Cheyenne County,
Nebraska under Kinder Morgan's blanket certificate issued March 16,
1983 and Docket Nos. CP83-140-100 and CP83-140-001, all as more fully
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Kinder Morgan states that by a Commission order issued September
30, 2009 in Docket No. CP09-109-000, it was granted authorization to
construct and operate additional facilities, the Huntsman 2009
Expansion Project, to increase the capability of the Huntsman Storage
Facility. The September 30, 2009 order also authorized Kinder Morgan to
increase the injection and withdrawal rates to the currently authorized
maximum injection rate of 107 MMcf/d and withdrawal rate of 179.4 MMcf/
d. Specifically, Kinder Morgan is requesting authorization to increase
the maximum certificated injection rate from 107 MMcf/d to 130 MMcf/d,
and to increase the maximum certificated withdrawal rate from 179.4
MMCf/d to 210 MMcf/d.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Robert
F. Harrington, Vice President, Regulatory, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission LLC, P.O. Box 281304, Lake wood, Colorado 80228-8304 at
(303) 763-3258.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: January 19, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1476 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 51061-51064]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0563]
RIN 1625-AA01

Special Anchorage Areas; Port of New York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing two special anchorage areas,
Special Anchorage Area North and Special Anchorage Area South, along
the Hudson River adjacent to Manhattan at the 79th Street Boat Basin;
revising the New York City Harbor Master phone number for Sheepshead
Bay, NY; and disestablishing the Captain of the Port New York
Commercial Mooring Buoy permit regulations and table displaying the
mooring anchor, chain, and pendant requirements. The Coast Guard is not
establishing two special anchorage areas on Sandy Hook Bay or
disestablishing the western special anchorage area in Sheepshead Bay,
as originally proposed. This action is necessary to facilitate safe
navigation in these areas and provide safe and secure anchorages for
vessels not more than 65 feet in length. This action is intended to
increase the safety of life and property in New York City, improve the
safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and
efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce.

DATES: This rule is effective September 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2011-0563]. 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 Mr. Jeff Yunker, Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard Sector New York; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lieutenant Isaac Slavitt, Waterways
Management Division at Coast Guard First District, telephone (617) 223-
8385, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, 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
NYC PARKS New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On February 6, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Special Anchorage Areas; Port of New York, NY in the
Federal Register (77 FR 5743). We received 13 comments on the proposed
rule. A public hearing was requested, but none was held since the
written comments clearly expressed the views of the commenters and oral
presentations would not aid in the rulemaking process.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236,
2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to
define anchorage grounds.
    The specific reasons for this rulemaking are requests submitted by
the local governments with jurisdiction over the current mooring fields
and special anchorage areas to clarify their usage. Additionally, the
removal of the

Captain of the Port New York Commercial Mooring Buoy permit regulations
and table Sec.  110.155(L)(7) displaying the mooring anchor, chain, and
pendant requirements aligns these regulations with current U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers permitting regulations.
    The purpose of this rule is to facilitate safe navigation in these
areas and provide safe and secure anchorages for vessels not more than
65 feet in length, increase the safety of life and property in New York
City, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the
overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received a total of 13 comments regarding the NPRM.
    No comments were received regarding the establishment of the two
special anchorage areas, Special Anchorage Area North and Special
Anchorage Area South along the Hudson River adjacent to Manhattan at
the 79th Street Boat Basin.
    The Coast Guard received one comment from the U.S. Department of
the Interior stating they had no comment at that time.
    The Coast Guard received one comment that simply restated a portion
of the proposed rulemaking.
    The Coast Guard received ten comments regarding the establishment
of the two special anchorage areas, Atlantic Highland North and
Atlantic Highland South, on Sandy Hook Bay at Atlantic Highlands, NJ.
    Of the ten comments relating to the Atlantic Highland areas, four
comments simply expressed support of establishment of the special
anchorage areas.
    Four additional comments requested an expansion of the proposed
boundaries of the special anchorage areas beyond the boundary initially
proposed in the NPRM. The comments stated that the special anchorage
areas with designated vessel mooring positions would create hazardous
conditions by transient vessels anchoring outside of the special
anchorage areas. The comments stated that transient vessels would
deploy anchors and chain of various lengths within the special
anchorage areas risking collisions between the vessels.
    Two comments requested that the requirement for mariners using the
Atlantic Highlands special anchorage areas to contact the local Harbor
Master be deleted. One of these comments stated that the Municipal
Harbor Master only has the authority to manage the 172 moorings within
the special anchorage areas and that there is no law authorizing the
Federal government to require mariners to notify the Harbor Master. One
of these comments questioned whether the Federal government had
authority to give navigational control of tidal waters to a municipal
entity or to require mariners using the anchorage to notify the Harbor
Master. Additionally, one of these comments stated that the channel
markers installed by Atlantic Highlands Harbor are at odds with the
boundary of the special anchorage areas, particularly the southeast
corner of the northern special anchorage area. The lighted piling is
approximately 80 feet northwest of the southeast corner of the proposed
special anchorage area.
    Based upon the comments received we conducted a site visit with the
Atlantic Highlands Harbor Master on July 18, 2012. After reviewing the
As-Built Mooring Field Construction Plan provided by the Harbor Master,
we determined that eight helical anchors were installed outside of the
proposed special anchorage areas and 28 of 29 unlit vessels would swing
outside of the special anchorage areas. The presence of these unlit
vessels outside of the special anchorage areas would create an unsafe
condition for other vessels transiting the area.
    Additionally, floating docks installed adjacent to the proposed
northern special anchorage area are not depicted on the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chart. This further decreases
the area available for vessels transiting between the proposed northern
special anchorage area and the docking facilities.
    Based upon these findings we are withdrawing the two proposed
special anchorage areas in Atlantic Highlands, NJ from this rulemaking.
The local Harbor Master will continue to resolve mooring location
issues as they have done in previous years prior to requesting the
establishment of these special anchorage areas. With regard to the
comments regarding contacting the local Harbor Master, we note that
that section has also been removed from this final rule, and thus the
comments on that issue are moot.
    We received one comment in opposition to the disestablishment of
the western special anchorage area in Sheepshead Bay, NY. The comment
stated that the western special anchorage area in Sheepshead Bay is
useful for transients and visiting vessels under 65 ft in length
because the yacht clubs and marinas within Sheepshead Bay have very few
moorings capable of accommodating vessels greater than 40 ft in length;
therefore visiting vessels with lengths between 40 and 65 feet must
anchor outside of these mooring fields if they are to stay in
Sheepshead Bay. The commenter also stated that Sheepshead Bay is
located away from the major shipping channels of New York Harbor and
accommodating transient boaters in the special anchorage area tends to
keep them from interfering with the large commercial vessels.
Additionally, the comment stated that the special anchorage area
provides a relatively convenient access to public transportation,
onshore shopping and amenities which facilitate interstate and
international commerce.
    Based upon this comment we are withdrawing the proposed
disestablishment of the western special anchorage area in Sheepshead
Bay, NY.
    Finally, we are adding the contact phone number for moorings in
Sheepshead Bay, NY, and clarifying language regarding the role of the
local Harbor Masters.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and 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.
    We expect minimal additional cost impacts on fishing, or
recreational boats anchoring because this rule will not affect normal
surface navigation. Although this regulation may have some limited
impact on the public due to the alteration of traffic patterns, the
potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Normal
surface navigation will not be affected as the special anchorage areas
on the Hudson River have historically been used as mooring fields by
NYC PARKS.
    The regulation requiring all vessels anchoring in Sheepshead Bay,
NY to remain entirely within the northern and southern special
anchorage areas at all times has the potential to reduce the number of
vessels that are able to anchor within the special anchorage

areas. However, this is necessary to maintain an open area for larger
charter fishing vessels and event vessels transiting to and from NYC
PARKS maintained fishing piers to the west.
    We expect minimal additional cost (and the potential for reduced
costs due to the removal of certain regulations) impacts on the tug and
barge operators because this rule will disestablish USCG permitting
regulations that are currently under the jurisdiction of the District
Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
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 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 received zero comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the
following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners
or operators of recreational and small fishing vessels intending to
anchor in the Hudson River and Sheepshead Bay, NY.
    The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the same reasons outlined
above in the ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' section.
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
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
 7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this 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 the establishment of special anchorage
areas and disestablishment of anchorage ground regulations. This rule
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage Grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  110.60 by adding paragraphs (c)(12) and (13) and
(d)(8)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.60  Captain of the Port, New York.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (12) 79th Street Boat Basin South. All waters of the Hudson River
enclosed by a line beginning at the northwest corner of the 70th Street
pier at approximate position 40[deg]46'47.10'' N, 073[deg]59'29.13'' W;
thence to 40[deg]47'02.60'' N, 073[deg]59'17.88'' W; thence to
40[deg]46'59.73'' N, 073[deg]59'13.01'' W; thence along the shoreline
and pier to the point of beginning.
    (13) 79th Street Boat Basin North. All waters of the Hudson River
enclosed by a line beginning on the shoreline near West 110th Street at
approximate position 40[deg]48'21.06'' N, 073[deg]58'15.72'' W; thence
to 40[deg]48'21.06'' N, 073[deg]58'24.00'' W; thence to
40[deg]47'14.70'' N, 073[deg]59'09.00'' W; thence to 40[deg]47'11.84''
N, 073[deg]59'08.90'' W; thence along the breakwater and shoreline to
the point of beginning.
    (i) The anchoring of vessels and use of the moorings in anchorage
areas described in paragraphs (c)(12) and (13) of this section will be
under the supervision of the local Harbor Master appointed by the City
of New York. Mariners may contact the boat basin on VHF CH 9 or at
(212) 496-2105 for mooring and anchoring availability. All moorings or
anchors shall be placed well within the anchorage areas so that no
portion of the hull or rigging will at any time extend outside of the
anchorage.
    (ii) [Reserved.]
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) The anchoring of vessels and use of the moorings in anchorage
areas described in paragraphs (d)(6) through (8) of this section will
be under the supervision of the local Harbor Master appointed by the
City of New York. Mariners may contact the Harbor Master at (718) 478-
0480. All moorings or anchors shall be placed well within the anchorage
areas so that no portion of the hull or rigging will at any time extend
outside of the anchorage. For guest moorings and access to and from the
anchorage areas described in paragraphs (d)(6) through (8) mariners may
contact the following boating clubs: Miramar Yacht Club<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Port Sheepshead<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Sheepshead Yacht Club (718) 891-
0991.
    (ii) [Reserved].
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  110.155 by revising paragraph (l)(8) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.155  Port of New York.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (8) Operations near commercial mooring buoys permitted by the
District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    (i) No vessel shall continuously occupy a mooring when a vessel in
regular traffic requires the berth or when navigation would be menaced
or inconvenienced thereby.
    (ii) No vessel shall moor or anchor in any anchorage in such a
manner as to interfere with the use of a duly authorized mooring buoy.
Nor shall any vessel moored to a buoy authorized by the District
Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be moored such that any portion
of that vessel comes within 50 feet of a marked or dredged channel.
    (iii) No vessel shall be operated within the limits of an anchorage
at speed exceeding 6 knots when in the vicinity of a moored vessel.
    (iv) In an emergency the Captain of the Port may shift the position
of any unattended vessel moored in or near any anchorage.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 2, 2013.
D.B. Abel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-19981 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P