[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39184-39186]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0252]

Office of the Secretary

45 CFR Part 5b

Privacy Act, Exempt Record System; Implementation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or Department) is
exempting a system of records from certain requirements of the Privacy
Act to protect the integrity of FDA's scientific research misconduct
proceedings and to protect the identity of confidential sources in such
proceedings.

DATES: This rule is effective July 31, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Sadler, Division of Freedom
of Information, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    HHS/FDA is exempting a system of records, 09-10-0020, ``FDA Records
Related to Research Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/FDA/OC,'' under
subsections (k)(2) and (k)(5) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) from
notification, access, accounting, and amendment provisions of the
Privacy Act.
    The purpose of this system of records is to implement FDA's
responsibilities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on
Research Misconduct (42 CFR part 93) for research performed by persons
who are FDA employees, agents of the Agency, or who are affiliated with
the Agency by contract or agreement. The term ``research misconduct''
is defined at 42 CFR 93.103 to mean ``fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in
reporting research results.'' The general policy of the PHS Policies on
Research Misconduct is that ``Research misconduct involving PHS support
is contrary to the interests of the PHS and the Federal government and
to the health and safety of the public, to the integrity of research,
and to the conservation of public funds.'' (42 CFR 93.100(a)).
    Under the Privacy Act, individuals have a right of access to
information pertaining to them which is contained in a system of
records. At the same time, the Privacy Act permits certain types of
systems to be exempt from some of the Privacy Act requirements. For
example, section 552a(k)(2) of the Privacy Act allows Agency heads to
exempt from certain Privacy Act provisions a system of records
containing investigatory material compiled for law enforcement
purposes. This exemption's effect on the record access provision is
qualified in that if the maintenance of the material results in the
denial of any right, privilege, or benefit that the individual would
otherwise be entitled to by Federal law, the individual must be granted
access to the material except to the extent that the access would
reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the
Government under an express promise that the identity of the source
would be held in confidence. In addition, section (k)(5) of the Privacy
Act permits an Agency to exempt investigatory material from certain
Privacy Act provisions where such material is compiled solely for the
purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for
Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or
access to classified information. This exemption is also limited as it
will be applied only to the extent that the disclosure of such material
would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the
Government under an express promise of confidentiality.
    FDA may take administrative action in response to a research
misconduct proceeding and, where there is a reasonable indication that
a civil or criminal fraud may have taken place, will refer the matter
to the appropriate investigative body. As such, FDA's records related
to research misconduct proceedings are compiled for law enforcement
purposes, and the subsection (k)(2) exemption is applicable to this
system of records. Moreover, where records related to research
misconduct proceedings are compiled solely for the purpose of making
determinations as to the suitability for appointment as special
Government employees or eligibility for Federal contracts from PHS
Agencies, the subsection (k)(5) exemption is applicable.
    On August 28, 2012, HHS/FDA published a system of records notice
(SORN) for this system (77 FR 52036). On the same date, HHS/FDA also
published a proposed rule (77 FR 51949) and, anticipating no
significant adverse comment, a direct final rule (77 FR 51910) to
exempt this system of records under subsections (k)(2) and (k)(5) of
the Privacy Act from the notification, access, accounting, and
amendment provisions of the Privacy Act. The comment period was open
through November 13, 2012. The Agency received three comments regarding
the exemptions. One comment was positive and in favor of the
exemptions. Another comment appears to have misunderstood the scope and
applicability of the exceptions, because it assumed that the purpose of
the rule was to exempt these records from access by the general public.
The third comment broadly opposed the exemptions as a governmental
over-reach restricting citizens' ability to maintain awareness of the
actions of regulatory bodies. FDA construed this last comment as
sufficiently adverse to merit withdrawal of the direct final rule on
January 10, 2013 (78 FR 2892; January 15, 2013). HHS/FDA now publishes
this final rule under the

standard notice and comment rulemaking process.
    After considering the comments, HHS/FDA believes the exemptions at
issue are necessary to fulfill the Agency's responsibilities for
addressing research misconduct. The exemptions are essential in order
for FDA to protect the confidentiality of sources who provide
information relevant to a research misconduct proceeding and to guard
against the premature disclosure of research misconduct records that
might obstruct or compromise proceedings. The exemptions will thereby
enable FDA to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of research
misconduct proceedings.
    Failure to adopt the exemptions would jeopardize the integrity and
effectiveness of FDA's research misconduct proceedings. FDA's new
system of records is modeled after the system of records maintained by
HHS' Office of Research Integrity (ORI) entitled ``HHS Records Related
to Research Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/OS/ORI'' System No. 09-37-0021
(59 FR 36776, July 19, 1994; revised most recently at 74 FR 44847,
August 31, 2009). ORI has exempted these records under subsections
(k)(2) and (k)(5) of the Privacy Act from the notification, access,
accounting, and amendment provisions of the Privacy Act, to ensure that
these records will not be disclosed inappropriately (59 FR 36717).
Likewise, HHS/FDA believes that exempting the new FDA system from the
same Privacy Act provisions is essential to ensure that material in
FDA's files related to research misconduct proceedings is not disclosed
inappropriately.
    Subject to its obligations under the PHS Policies on Research
Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93, and other applicable law, HHS/FDA is
therefore exempting this system under subsections (k)(2) and (k)(5) of
the Privacy Act from the notification, access, and amendment provisions
of the Privacy Act (subsections (c)(3), (d)(1) to (d)(4), (e)(4)(G) and
(e)(4)(H), and (f)). The specific rationales for applying each of the
exemptions are as follows:
     Subsection (c)(3). An exemption from the requirement to
provide an accounting of disclosures is needed during the pendency of a
research misconduct proceeding. Release of an accounting of disclosures
to an individual who is the subject of a pending research misconduct
assessment, inquiry, or investigation could prematurely reveal the
nature and scope of the assessment, inquiry, or investigation and could
result in the altering or destruction of evidence, improper influencing
of witnesses, and other evasive actions that could impede or compromise
the proceeding.
     Subsection (d)(1). An exemption from the access
requirement is needed both during and after a research misconduct
proceeding, to avoid revealing the identity of any source who was
expressly promised confidentiality. Only material that would reveal a
confidential source will be exempt from access. Protecting the identity
of a source is necessary when the source is unwilling to report
possible research misconduct because of fear of retaliation (e.g., from
an employer or coworkers).
     Subsections (d)(2) through (d)(4). An exemption from the
amendment provisions is necessary while one or more related research
misconduct proceedings are pending. Allowing amendment of investigative
records in a pending proceeding could interfere with that proceeding;
even after that proceeding is concluded, an amendment could interfere
with other pending or prospective research misconduct proceedings, or
could significantly delay inquiries or investigations in an attempt to
resolve questions of accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness.
     Subsection (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H). An exemption from the
Privacy Act notification provisions is necessary during the pendency of
a research misconduct proceeding, because notifying an individual who
is the subject of an assessment, inquiry, or investigation of the fact
of such proceedings could prematurely reveal the nature and scope of
the proceedings and result in the altering or destruction of evidence,
improper influencing of witnesses, and other evasive actions that could
impede or compromise the proceeding. This exemption does not alter
FDA's obligations to provide notice to the respondent in a research
misconduct proceeding as described in the PHS Policies on Research
Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93.
     Subsection (f). An exemption from the requirement to
establish procedures for notification, access to records, amendment of
records, or appeals of denials of access to records is appropriate
because the procedures would serve no purpose in light of the other
exemptions, to the extent that those exemptions apply.
    To avoid the unnecessary application of the exemptions, FDA will
give case-by-case consideration to requests for notification, access,
and amendment submitted to FDA's Research Integrity Officer (System
Manager) or Privacy Act Coordinator. Except for information that would
reveal the identity of a source who was expressly promised
confidentiality, the access exemption will not prohibit HHS/FDA from
granting respondents' access requests consistent with the PHS Policies
on Research Misconduct (42 CFR part 93), including in those cases in
which a finding of research misconduct has become final and an
administrative action has been imposed. The request submission process
is described in the SORN previously published for this system (77 FR
52036) and available online at http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/FOI/PrivacyAct/ucm323341.htm.

II. Analysis of Impacts

    HHS/FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity). The Agency believes that this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because the final rule imposes no duties or
obligations on small entities, the Agency certifies that the final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $139 million, using the most current (2011) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. HHS/FDA does not expect
this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 21

    Privacy.

45 CFR Part 5b

    Privacy.
    Therefore, the Department of Health and Human Services is amending
21 CFR part 21 and 45 CFR part 5b to read as follows:

Title 21

PART 21--PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 21 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 371; 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a.

0
2. Section 21.61 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  21.61  Exempt systems.

* * * * *
    (d) Records in the following Food and Drug Administration Privacy
Act Records Systems are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5)
from the provisions enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) through paragraph
(a)(3) of this section: FDA Records Related to Research Misconduct
Proceedings, HHS/FDA/OC, 09-10-0020.

Title 45

PART 5b--PRIVACY ACT REGULATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for 45 CFR part 5b continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

0
4. Section 5b.11 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(C) to read
as follows:

Sec.  5b.11  Exempt systems.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) * * *
    (C) FDA Records Related to Research Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/
FDA/OC, 09-10-0020.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 14, 2013.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-15599 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 68 (Monday, April 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18968-18969]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-14-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-516G); Comment
Request; Revision and Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC-516G, Electric Rates Schedules and Tariff
Filings, as it would be revised in this information collection request.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due June 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC21-14-
000) by any of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at: http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-516G, Electric Rates Schedules and Tariff Filings.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0295.
    Type of Request: Three-year revision and renewal of FERC-516G.
    Abstract: In accordance with section 206 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA) \1\ and 18 CFR 35.28(g)(10), each Independent System Operator
(ISO) and Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) must report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) On a monthly basis, total uplift payments for each transmission
zone, broken out by day and uplift category;
    (2) On a monthly basis, total uplift payments for each resource;
and
    (3) On a monthly basis, each operator-initiated commitment, the
size of the commitment, transmission zone, commitment reason, and
commitment start time.
    As originally cleared by OMB, FERC-516G also included a one-time
requirement that ITOs and RTOs revise their tariffs. Those tariffs have
been revised, and FERC is requesting removal of that information
collection activity.
    Type of Respondents: ISOs and RTOs.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \2\: The estimated burden and cost \3\
are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \3\ The hourly cost estimate is based on data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics for three occupational categories for 2020 involved
in the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. These figures
include salary (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm) and
benefits and are:
     Manager (Occupation Code 110-0000) $97.15/hour.
     Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code 17-2071): $70.19/
hour.
     File Clerk (Occupation Code 43-4071): $34.79/hour.
    The estimate hourly cost for the reporting requirements ($67.38)
is an average of the cost of a manager, an electrical engineer, and
a file clerk.

                                               FERC-516G Annual Burden Estimates in Docket No. IC21-14-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Total number                                                         Cost per
                                          Number of     Annual number   of responses    Average burden hours &     Total annual burden      respondent
           Type of response              respondents    of responses     (Column B x       cost per response      hours & cost (Column D    (Column F /
                                                       per respondent     Column C)                                    x Column E)           Column B)
A.                                                 B.              C.              D.  E.......................  F......................              G.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparing and Posting of 3 reports on               6              12              72  3 hrs.; $202.14.........  216 hrs.; $14,554.08...       $2,425.68
 company website each month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: April 6, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07446 Filed 4-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32906-32911]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 390 and 396

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0046]
RIN 2126-AB34

Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; Driver-Vehicle Inspection
Report for Intermodal Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to revise a requirement of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations that applies to intermodal equipment
providers and motor carriers operating intermodal equipment. The Agency
proposes to delete the requirement for drivers operating intermodal
equipment to submit and intermodal equipment providers to retain
driver-vehicle inspection reports when the driver has neither found nor
been made aware of any defects on the intermodal equipment used. This
NPRM responds to a joint petition for rulemaking from the Ocean Carrier
Equipment Management Association and the Institute of International
Container Lessors.

DATES: Send your comments on or before August 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket ID Number
FMCSA-2011-0046 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations (MC-PSV), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2011-0046), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Select Document Type'' drop-down menu,
select ``Proposed Rule,'' insert ``FMCSA-2011-0046'' in the ``Keyword''
box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on
``Submit a Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the

comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble,
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on
the ``Read Comments'' box in the upper right-hand side of the screen.
Then, in the ``Keyword'' box insert ``FMCSA-2011-0046'' and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions''
column. Finally, in the ``Title'' column, click on the document you
would like to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Privacy Act system of records
notice for the DOT Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) in the
Federal Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316) at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Abbreviations

ATA American Trucking Associations
CMV commercial motor vehicle
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DVIR driver-vehicle inspection report
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
IANA Intermodal Association of North America
IEP intermodal equipment provider
IICL Institute of International Container Lessors
IME intermodal equipment
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OCEMA Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act; A Legacy for Users
Secretary Secretary of Transportation

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    Although cargo containers move by ship, and often also by rail,
their journeys generally begin and end on chassis trailers for
transportation by highway to their final destinations. These trailers,
generally referred to as intermodal equipment (IME), fall under FMCSA's
safety jurisdiction. At issue in this NPRM is the requirement that
drivers complete driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) which note
the existence or absence of defects or deficiencies in IME. FMCSA
proposes to eliminate the requirement that drivers complete DVIRs when
they have no defects or deficiencies to report.
    This NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of
1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act),
both of which are broadly discretionary, and the specific mandates of
section 4118 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act; a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU Pub. L. 109-
59, 119 Stat. 1144, at 1729, August 10, 2005, codified at 49 U.S.C.
31151).
    The 1935 Act provides that the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary) may prescribe requirements for (1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a (for-hire) motor carrier (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(1)), and
(2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and
standards of equipment of, a (not for-hire) motor private carrier, when
needed to promote safety of operation (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(2)). This
rulemaking is based on the Secretary's authority under both provisions.
    The 1984 Act authorizes the Secretary to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. Codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136(a),
section 206(a) of the 1984 Act requires the Secretary to publish
regulations on motor vehicle safety. Specifically, the Act sets forth
minimum safety standards to ensure that: (1) Commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely (49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(1)); (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely (49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(2)); (3) the physical condition of CMV operators is adequate
to enable them to operate the vehicles safely (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3));
and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the
physical condition of the operators (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(4)).
    Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU, entitled ``Roadability,'' requires the
Secretary to issue regulations ``to ensure that intermodal equipment
used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically
maintained.'' Section 31151(a)(3) of title 49, United States Code,
specifies a minimum of 14 items to be included in those regulations. It
also authorizes departmental employees designated by the Secretary to
inspect IME and copy related maintenance and repair records (49 U.S.C.
31151(b)). Any IME that fails to comply with applicable Federal safety
regulations may be placed out of service (OOS) by Departmental or other
Federal, State, or governmental officials designated by the Secretary
until the necessary repairs have been made (49 U.S.C. 31151(c)). Also
included is a provision preempting inconsistent State, local, or tribal
requirements, but providing that preemption may be waived upon
application by the State if the Secretary finds the State requirement
is as effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden
interstate commerce (49 U.S.C. 31151(d) and (e)).
    FMCSA published a final rule on December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76794)
implementing the SAFETEA-LU requirements. That rule requires Intermodal
Equipment Providers (IEPs) to register and file with FMCSA an
Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (Form MCS-150C);
establish a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program in
order to provide IME that is in safe and proper operating condition;
maintain documentation of their maintenance program; and provide a
means to respond effectively to driver and motor carrier reports about
intermodal chassis mechanical defects and deficiencies. The regulations
also require IEPs to mark each intermodal chassis offered for
transportation in interstate commerce with a DOT identification number.
These regulations, for the first time, make IEPs subject to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), and call for shared safety
responsibility among IEPs, motor carriers, and drivers. Additionally,
FMCSA adopted inspection requirements for motor carriers and drivers
operating IME.

IV. Background

    Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU [Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 2005, 119
Stat. 1144, 1729] amended 49 U.S.C. chapter 311 to require that the
Secretary establish a program ensuring that IME used to transport
intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained (49 U.S.C.
31151). Among other things, the statute called for the Secretary to
mandate ``a process by which a driver or motor carrier transporting IME
is required to report to the IEP or the providers' designated agent any
actual damage or defect in the IME of which the driver or motor carrier
is aware at the time the IME is returned to the IEP or the provider's
designated agent'' (49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(L)).

    To satisfy this statutory requirement, FMCSA proposed a rule that
for the first time would (1) make IEPs subject to the FMCSRs and (2)
call for a shared safety responsibility among IEPs, motor carriers, and
drivers (71 FR 76796, December 21, 2006). That proposed rule included a
new Sec.  390.44 (changed to Sec.  390.42 in the final rule), which
prescribed the responsibilities of drivers and motor carriers when
operating IME. Proposed Sec.  390.44(b) required the driver or motor
carrier to report any damage or deficiencies in the equipment at the
time the equipment is returned to the IEP. These included, at a
minimum, the items listed in proposed Sec.  396.11(a)(2), which
required that the IEP have a process in place to receive reports of
defects or deficiencies in the equipment and which listed the specific
components that must be included on the DVIR. Finally, FMCSA proposed a
new Sec.  396.12 that required IEPs to establish a procedure to accept
reports of defects or deficiencies from motor carriers or drivers,
repair the defects that are likely to affect safety, and document the
procedure. Importantly, FMCSA did not propose any changes to Sec.
396.11(b), ``Report content,'' which requires--for both non-IME and
IME--that ``If no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to
the driver, the report shall so indicate.'' This requirement to prepare
a DVIR, even in the absence of equipment defects or deficiencies
(hereafter a ``no-defect DVIR''), has been in the safety regulations
since 1952 (17 FR 4422, 4452, May 15, 1952).\1\ FMCSA did not receive
any comments opposing its decision not to make changes to Sec.
396.11(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The driver's responsibility to report vehicle defects has
always been part of the Federal safety regulations for CMVs. Part 6,
Rule 6.6, of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations issued by the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1939 called for every driver
to submit a written report at the end of his day's work or tour of
duty to inform his employer of any vehicle defect or deficiency he
discovered that would likely affect the safety of operation of that
vehicle (4 FR 2294, 2305, June 7, 1939). The ICC recommended, but
did not require, motor carriers to use a Driver's Trip Report. The
report included the driver's name, vehicle number, date, a list of
20 items for inspection and a space for the driver and mechanic to
note defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule, published December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76794), the
Agency added language in the new Sec.  390.42(b) (which had been Sec.
390.44 in the NPRM) and Sec.  396.12(b)(4) to clarify that ``if no
damage, defects, or deficiencies are discovered by the driver, the
report shall so indicate.'' This was done to make the new rules for
IEPs consistent with Sec.  396.11(b), which has, for many years,
required drivers to prepare no-defect DVIRs.
    On October 27, 2009, Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association
(OCEMA) petitioned FMCSA for a partial extension of the compliance date
for Sec. Sec.  396.9(d), 396.11(a)(2), 396.12(a), 396.12(c), and
396.12(d). These provisions include the process for delivering the DVIR
and acting on defects or deficiencies reported. FMCSA granted the
petition. In a final rule published December 29, 2009, the compliance
date for these provisions was extended from December 17, 2009, to June
30, 2010 (74 FR 68703).

V. OCEMA's and IICL's Petition

    On March 31, 2010, OCEMA and Institute of International Container
Lessors (IICL) jointly petitioned FMCSA to rescind the part of Sec.
390.42(b) that concerns a driver's responsibility to file no-defect
DVIRs with IEPs on IME they are returning.\2\ The regulatory text at
issue states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although the petition did not specifically address the
analogous requirement in Sec.  396.12(b)(4), this NPRM addresses the
issue of ``no-defect DVIRs'' throughout Parts 390 and 396.

    (b) A driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment
must report to the intermodal equipment provider, or its designated
agent, any known damage, defects, or deficiencies in the intermodal
equipment at the time the equipment is returned to the provider or
the provider's designated agent. If no damage, defects, or
deficiencies are discovered by the driver, the report shall so
indicate. The report must include, at a minimum, the items in Sec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
396.11(a)(2) of this chapter (emphasis added).

OCEMA and IICL requested that FMCSA delete the sentence in italics.

    The petitioners presented four arguments against the DVIR element
of the current rule:
    (1) SAFETEA-LU requires DVIRs only for known damage or defects.
Congress could have added a requirement to file no-defect DVIRs but did
not do so. The regulatory imposition of no-defect DVIRs is not required
by law and likely is inconsistent with Congressional intent.
    (2) There is a significant risk that the volume of no-defect DVIRs,
if required, could overwhelm the 4 percent of DVIRs that contain damage
or defects. Using a sampling of industry data from 2007-2009, OCEMA
estimated that 16.9 percent of chassis operating in the United States
are in-gated (return to the IME through the in-gate process) every day.
Assuming a fleet of 650,000 active chassis per day, there are 109,850
in-gates per day and 40,095,250 in-gates per year. The petitioners
estimated that approximately 96 percent of DVIRs collected do not
contain discrepancies, which results in 38,491,440 no-defect DVIRs per
year. The risk is that 1,603,810 DVIRs, or 4 percent of the total, that
contain defect and damage information will be lost, obscured, or
delayed by the sheer magnitude of the remaining 96 percent of no-defect
DVIRs.
    (3) The petitioners added that ``Data transmission, processing, and
storage requirements for no-defect DVIRs add significant unnecessary
costs to intermodal operations with no apparent offsetting benefits.''
They stated:

    Each DVIR processed will involve utilizing the GIER [Global
Intermodal Equipment Registry] system to retrieve the USDOT number
at a transaction cost of $.02. For an estimated 38,491,440 no-defect
DVIRs per year, IEPs would incur over $769,828.00 in costs to
retrieve just that information.

    (4) The petitioners claimed that submission of no-defect DVIRs
contributes to driver productivity losses in the form of congestion and
delay at intermodal facilities. The petitioners assumed that truck
drivers take 3 minutes to fill out a report, which results in 1,924,572
driver hours lost per year. They added:

    IEPs will incur costs associated with storage of electronic or
paper copies and the reproduction of same for FMCSA personnel.
Assuming truck drivers take 3 minutes per report, this would mean
almost 2 million driver-hours spent on a largely meaningless
exercise.

    FMCSA granted the petition on July 30, 2010. The Agency Order
granting the petition has been placed in the docket.
    Because FMCSA did not have sufficient time to address the petition
through a notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to the compliance date of
June 30, 2010, it published a final rule on August 20, 2010 that
extended the compliance date for Sec.  390.42(b) to June 30, 2011 (75
FR 51419).

VI. Agency Analysis of the Petition and Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Agency agrees with the petitioners that the existing
requirement for motor carriers to prepare no-defect DVIRs goes beyond
the specific requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(L). In its 2008
final rule, FMCSA, for the first time, subjected IEPs to the FMCSRs,
and called for shared safety responsibility among IEPs, motor carriers,
and drivers regarding processes for assessing the condition of IME and
documenting deficiencies and repairs. Section 390.40(d) requires an IEP
to ``provide intermodal equipment that is in safe and proper operating
condition.'' At facilities at which the IEP makes IME available for
interchange, Sec.  390.40(i) requires that the IEP must (1)

develop and implement procedures to repair any equipment damage,
defects, or deficiencies identified as part of a pre-trip inspection,
or (2) replace the equipment. Existing regulations provide a system of
checks and balances to ensure that all IME offered for interchange is
in safe and proper operating condition--regardless of whether the motor
carrier prepared a DVIR for IME that had no damage, defects, or
deficiencies at the time it was returned.
    Accordingly, FMCSA is proposing to eliminate the language of
Sec. Sec.  390.42(b) and 396.12(b)(4) that expressly requires motor
carriers to prepare and transmit a no-defect DVIR to the IEP upon
returning the IME. For consistency, the Agency is also proposing minor
amendments to Sec.  396.11(b) to clarify that no-defect DVIRs do not
need to be prepared for items of IME.
    This proposed rule does not change a driver's obligation to assess
the condition of IME at the end of a workday to determine whether the
IME has defects or deficiencies that could affect the safety of its
operation. Although FMCSA proposes to remove the requirement to
complete a DVIR if the driver has found no defects in the IME and none
have been reported to the driver, he or she must still inspect the IME
to make this determination. This proposed change also does not affect
requirements governing the inspection and completion of DVIRs for power
units.
    Although FMCSA is proposing to make the change requested by the
petitioners, it still seeks comments from all interested parties on
certain aspects of the DVIR process. First, there are differences
between the Petitioners' and FMCSA's previously published cost and time
burden estimates associated with no-defect DVIRs. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) statement referenced in the 2008 final rule
\3\ estimated the time spent for a driver to prepare a written
inspection report and provide a copy to his/her employing motor carrier
as approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds on average. Additionally, 5
seconds were estimated for a driver to review and acknowledge the last
vehicle inspection report that had noted no vehicle defects. This
results in a total burden of 2 minutes 35 seconds when no defect was
found, less than the 3 minute burden presented in the petition. Neither
the 2008 final rule nor the petition evaluated the time burden of
handling DVIR paperwork by motor carriers and IEP staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the currently approved supporting statement for
Inspection, Repair and Maintenance Information Collection Request
(ICR) (OMB control number 2126-0003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the petitioners also stated that a $.02 transaction cost is
incurred by the IEP to retrieve the USDOT number through an electronic
database, which is necessary for IME identification and completion of
no-defect DVIR processing. However, the Agency published a technical
amendment on December 29, 2009 (74 FR 68703), which introduced a fifth
option for IME identification: use of an electronic database system.
The Agency required that several conditions be satisfied, specifically,
that the system not require a user-fee:

    2. The identification system shall be publicly-available, and
offer read-only access for inquiries on individual items of IME
without requiring advance user registration, a password, or a usage-
fee. The identification system must be accessible through: real-time
internet access via public web portal; and toll-free telephonic
access (emphasis added)

    Because the Agency cannot validate the cost and time burden
associated with no-defect DVIRs, the Agency is requesting that
commenters to this rulemaking provide their analysis of the DVIR
process. FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on these
questions:
1. DVIR Handling
    1.1. Please explain in detail the procedures for filing and
maintaining DVIRs from the time they are completed through the end of
their retention periods. Are defect DVIRs are kept separate from no-
defect DVIRs, sent to maintenance staff, and then acted on? Do you have
special procedures in place for the no-defect DVIRs? If so, please
describe them.
    1.2. Do you have examples of specific incidents in which handling
of a large volume of no-defect DVIRs has interfered with handling of
defect DVIRs? If so, please describe how these additional documents
affected the repairing of defects.
    1.3. Some DVIRs are completed electronically. Are the electronic
DVIRs automatically or manually separated into defect and no-defect
categories? Do you have an estimate of the percentage of forms filled
out on paper and electronically? If so, please provide detailed
information on the data and methodology used for that estimate.
    2. Please provide information on the percentage of no-defect DVIRs.
Also, please provide a discussion of the methodology for developing
this information.

Proposed Changes

    This proposed rule would revise Sec. Sec.  390.42(b), 396.11(b),
and 396.12(b)(4) to delete the sentence, ``If no damage, defects, or
deficiencies are discovered by the driver, the report shall so
indicate.'' This proposed rule also makes an editorial change. The
language that was originally under Sec.  396.11(b) has been split, for
clarity, into three subparagraphs: Sec.  396.11(b)(1), (2), and (3),
respectively. New text, as described, is contained in Sec.
396.11(b)(2).

VII. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has determined that this action does not meet the criteria
for a ``significant regulatory action.'' either as specified in
Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 issued
by the President on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821) or within the meaning
of the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If this rule becomes final, the
industry would not be expected to experience new costs.
    The proposed rule would remove the requirement for drivers to
submit DVIRs when they do not have IME defects or deficiencies to
report. Because the requirement for identifying IME only came into
effect in December 2010, and because information management systems and
crash report forms are still in the process of being revised to
identify IEPs, the Agency does not have current data on crashes
involving IME or subject to the December 2008 rule. Because IEPs
continue to be required to provide IME intended for interchange to
motor carriers that is in safe and proper operating condition, the
Agency does not expect implementation of this rule to result in any
change in the number of truck crashes.
    Lacking independent data, FMCSA also is unable to estimate the
precise aggregate benefits of the proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
Federal agencies to determine whether proposed rules could have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would grant regulatory relief to IEPs, which consist
of 108 entities, including steamship lines, railroads, and chassis pool
operators. In its 2008 final rule, the Agency confirmed that all IEPs
are either foreign-owned or otherwise do not meet the criteria for
small business

designation as defined by the Small Business Administration (73 FR
76816). Consequently, the Agency certifies that this proposed action
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $140.8
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2009 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action 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.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. We
determined that this rulemaking does not pose an environmental risk to
health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rulemaking 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. FMCSA analyzed this
proposed action in accordance with Executive Order 13132. The proposal
would not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor would it
limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this rulemaking
would preempt any State law or regulation.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this action.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FMCSA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We determined that no new
information collection requirements are associated with this proposed
rule. The Agency believes that, if promulgated, this rulemaking would
result in a reduction in the information collection burden associated
with completing the driver-vehicle inspection report, but cannot
quantify the reduction at this time.

National Environmental Policy Act

    FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued
March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this proposed action does not have any
effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, this NPRM is
categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA
Order 5610.1, paragraph 6(bb) of Appendix 2. The Categorical Exclusion
under paragraph 6(y)(6) relates to ``regulations concerning vehicle
operation safety standards,'' such as the driver-vehicle inspection
reports addressed by this rulemaking. A Categorical Exclusion
determination is available for inspection or copying in the
Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.
    We also analyzed this proposal under section 176(c) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.
    In addition to the NEPA requirements to examine impacts on air
quality, the CAA also requires FMCSA to analyze the potential impact of
its actions on air quality and to ensure that FMCSA actions conform to
State and local air quality implementation plans. The additional
contributions to air emissions from any of the options are expected to
fall within the CAA de minimis standards and are not expected to be
subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's General Conformity
Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Executive Order because it is not
economically significant and is not likely to have an adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 390

    Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 396

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter III, subchapter B, as follows:

PART 390--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL

    1. The authority citation for part 390 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 508, 13301, 13902, 31132, 31133, 31136,
31144, 31151, 31502, 31504; sec. 204, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803,
941 (49 U.S.C. 701 note); sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673,
1677; sec. 212, 217, 229, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766,
1767, 1773; sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745 and 49
CFR 1.73.

    2. Revise Sec.  390.42(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  390.42  What are the responsibilities of drivers and motor
carriers operating intermodal equipment?

* * * * *
    (b) A driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment
must report to the intermodal equipment provider, or its designated
agent, any known damage, defects, or deficiencies in the intermodal
equipment at the time the equipment is returned to the provider or the
provider's designated agent. The report must include, at a minimum, the
items in Sec.  396.11(a)(2) of this chapter.

PART 396--INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE

    3. The authority citation for part 396 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31151, and 31502; and 49 CFR
1.73.

    4. Revise Sec.  396.11(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  396.11  Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

* * * * *
    (b) Report content. (1) The report shall identify the vehicle and
list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver
that would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in
its mechanical breakdown.
    (2) For vehicles other than intermodal equipment tendered by
intermodal equipment providers, if no defect or deficiency is
discovered by or reported to the driver, the written report shall so
indicate.
    (3) For intermodal equipment tendered by intermodal equipment
providers, if no defects or deficiencies are discovered by or reported
to the driver, no written report is required.
    (4) In all instances where a written driver vehicle inspection
report is required, the driver shall sign the report. On two-driver
operations, only one driver needs to sign, provided both drivers agree
as to the defects or deficiencies identified. If a driver operates more
than one vehicle during the day, a report shall be prepared for each
vehicle operated.
* * * * *
    5. Revise Sec.  396.12(b)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  396.12  Procedures for intermodal equipment providers to accept
reports required by Sec.  390.42 (b) of this chapter.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) All damage, defects, or deficiencies of the intermodal
equipment must be reported to the equipment provider by the motor
carrier or its driver. If no defect or deficiency in the intermodal
equipment is discovered by or reported to the driver, no written report
is required.
* * * * *

    Issued on: May 27, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator, FMCSA.
[FR Doc. 2011-13935 Filed 6-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33142-33143]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of a new
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on March 20, 2008, vol. 73, no. 55, page
15042. This project involves the random and representative sampling of
Flight Attendants currently employed by U.S. air carriers.

DATES: Please submit comments by July 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: National Flight Attendant Duty/Rest/Fatigue Survey.
    Type of Request: Approval of a new collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX.
    Form(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: An estimated 12,000 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected annually.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 1 hour per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 12,000 hours annually.
    Abstract: This project involves the random and representative
sampling of Flight Attendants currently employed by U.S. air carriers.
The goal of this effort is to identify the type of fatigue that flight
attendants experience, the frequency with which they experience
fatigue, and the consequences fatigue

may have on the safety of U.S. air carriers. The results obtained from
this survey are intended to provide information to FAA policy makers
regarding flight attendant rest and duty time.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
 [FR Doc. E8-12904 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43256]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0563]

Safety Zone; Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port New York
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce safety zones in the Captain of
the Port (COTP) New York Zone on specified dates and times. These
actions are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators
from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement
periods, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without
permission from the COTP.

DATES: The regulations for the marine event listed in Table 1 to 33 CFR
165.160(4.4) will be enforced on October 5, 2014 from 6:50 p.m. through
8:10 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Kristopher Kesting, Coast Guard; telephone
718-354-4154, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.160(4.4) on the specified date and time
as indicated below. The regulation covering this safety zone was
published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of Indians in America         Launch site: All
 Fireworks, Seaport, East River Safety    waters of the East River south
 Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(4.4).               of the Brooklyn Bridge and
                                          north of a line drawn from the
                                          southwest corner of Pier 3,
                                          Brooklyn, to the southeast
                                          corner of Pier 6, Manhattan.
                                          Date: October 5, 2014.
                                          Time: 6:50 p.m.-8:10
                                          p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, a vessel may not enter a
safety zone unless given express permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside a
safety zone but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit
of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of
enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that a safety zone need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the safety zone.

    Dated: July 7, 2014.
G. Loebl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2014-17598 Filed 7-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 1995-1996]
[DOCID:fr17ja07-43]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8270-1;Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0001]

Draft of Part 1 of the 2007 Release of the Causal Analysis/
Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of External Review Draft for Public Review and Comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
30-day public review and comment period for the external review draft
of Part 1 of the 2007 release of the EPA Web site titled, ``Causal
Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS).'' The CADDIS
Web site was developed and prepared by EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in the Office of Research and
Development (ORD). NCEA will consider public comments received in
accordance with this notice when revising the CADDIS Web site. Review
of Part 2 of CADDIS 2007 will be announced in the Spring of 2007.
    EPA is releasing the draft CADDIS 2007 Web site solely for the
purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information
quality guidelines. The draft CADDIS 2007 Web site has not been
formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be
construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. EPA will
consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this notice
when revising the document.

DATES: The 30-day public comment period begins January 17, 2007, and
ends February 16, 2007. Technical comments should be in writing and
must be submitted electronically or postmarked by February 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The draft CADDIS 2007 Web site can be accessed via the
Internet at http://caddis.tetratech-ffx.com. Enter the username

``public'' and the password ``public.'' Additional instructions for
submitting comments are provided at the top of the home page of the
CADDIS Web site. Comments may be submitted electronically to the EPA's
e-docket, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please
follow the detailed instructions as provided in the section of this
notice entitled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information, contact Vic Serveiss,

NCEA, via phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Project/Document

    Over a thousand water bodies in the United States are listed by
states as biologically impaired. For many of these sites, the cause of
impairment is reported as ``unknown.'' To formulate appropriate
management actions for impaired water bodies, it is important to
identify the causes of biological impairment (e.g., excess fine
sediments, nutrients, or toxic substances). Effective causal analyses
call for knowledge of the mechanisms, symptoms, and stressor-response
relationships for various stressors, as well as the ability to use that
knowledge to draw appropriate, defensible conclusions. To aid in these
causal analyses, NCEA developed CADDIS. CADDIS is a Web-based decision
support system that will help regional, state, and tribal scientists
find, access, organize, and share information useful for causal
evaluations of impairment in aquatic systems. It is based on EPA's
Stressor Identification process, which is an EPA-recommended method for
identifying causes of impairments in aquatic environments. EPA released
the first version of CADDIS earlier in 2006, after addressing comments
from the public and independently selected peer reviewers. Current
features of CADDIS include a step-by-step guide to conducting causal
analysis, downloadable worksheets and examples, a library of conceptual
models, and links to useful information sources. Additional information
is being added to the CADDIS Web site in preparation for release of a
major revision in September 2007. The review announced here is the
first of two sets of modules added to the CADDIS Web site.
Specifically, comment is invited on information on six candidate
causes: metals, sediments, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, thermal
alteration, and ionic strength. Since its release, CADDIS has become a
valuable resource for EPA, state, tribal, and local risk assessors.
CADDIS 2007 will add more capabilities to this already important
diagnostic tool.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-
0001 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit
three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number
pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original
and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2005-0001. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

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

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA

Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: January 11, 2007.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E7-518 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15221-15223]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0102]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; The Boat Show Marathon; Lake Havasu, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within
the navigable waters of Lake Havasu for the 2014 Lake Havasu Boat Show
Water Ski Marathon. The temporary safety zone is necessary to provide
safety for the water ski race participants, crew, rescue personnel, and
other users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on April 12,
2014 and April 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0102]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
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
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because an NPRM would be impracticable.
Logistical details did not present the Coast Guard enough time to
draft, publish, and receive public comment on an NPRM. As such, the
event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Immediate
action is needed to help protect the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, and participating vessels from other vessels during the
event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons mentioned above, the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay
in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public
interest, because immediate action is necessary to protect the safety
of the participants from the dangers associated with other vessels
transiting this area while the skiing event occurs.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and
define regulatory safety zones.
    The Boat Show Marathon will consist of 150 water skiers. The water
ski race course consists of three races per day around a closed 2.5
mile race course for a specified amount of laps on a portion of Lake
Havasu located north of the London Bridge Channel and west of Windsor
Park.
    The course requires a safety zone while the skiers are on the
course, thus restricting vessel traffic within a portion of Lake Havasu
during the eight hours scheduled for three races held each racing each
day. There will be six patrol vessels and two rescue vessels provided
by the sponsor to patrol the boundaries of the safety zone.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on April 12, 2014 and April
13, 2014. The limits of the safety zone will include a portion of Lake
Havasu north of the London Bridge Channel and west of Windsor Park
encompassed by the following coordinates:

34[deg]28'38.6'' N, 114[deg]21'20.4'' W,
34[deg]29'40.8'' N, 114[deg]21'44.5'' W,
34[deg]29'24.0'' N, 114[deg]22'53.7'' W and
34[deg]28'38.6'' N, 114[deg]22'51.8'' W

    The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
participants, crew, rescue personnel, and other users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Before the
effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to
mariners (LNM).

D. 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 the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation
is unnecessary. This determination is based on the safety zone being of
a limited duration of no more than eight hours each day, and limited to
a relatively small geographic area of Lake Havasu.

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 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 may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the Colorado
River from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on April 12, 2014 and April 13, 2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
safety zone impacts a relatively small area. Small entities can conduct
their activities in areas not impacted by this event by transiting
around the event or gaining permission by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative for an escort through the race area
between the three races held each day. This annual event included
planning with various stakeholders prior to the event permit request
was submitted. Finally, before the effective period, the Coast Guard
will publish a Local Notice to Mariners.

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 calls for no 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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-623 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-623  Safety Zone; The Boat Show Marathon, Lake Havasu,
AZ.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include a portion
of Lake Havasu north of the London Bridge Channel and west of Windsor
Park encompassed by the following coordinates:

34[deg]28'38.6'' N, 114[deg]21'20.4'' W,
34[deg]29'40.8'' N, 114[deg]21'44.5'' W,
34[deg]29'24.0'' N, 114[deg]22'53.7'' W and
34[deg]28'38.6'' N, 114[deg]22'51.8'' W

    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced on April 12,
2014 and April 13, 2014. It will be enforced from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. each day.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
or local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may initiate request authorization to do so from the event sponsor
who may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator
of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
S. M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2014-05947 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P