[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19364-19365]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-133-000]

Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 6, 2017, Northwest Pipeline LLC
(Northwest), having its principal place of business at 295 Chipeta Way,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 filed in the above referenced docket an
application pursuant to section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting
authorization to Northwest proposes to (1) remove and replace 1,700
feet of 30-inch pipeline and (2) remove 1,550 feet of previously
abandoned-in-place 26-inch pipeline located in Whatcom County,
Washington referred to as Nooksack Line Lowering Project (Project), all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The Project is designed to
reduce the exposure to the pipeline caused by river channel migration
and improve reliability for the benefit of existing customers. The
total cost of the Project is approximately $16,585,331. The filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Richard N. Stapler Jr., Business Development, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84108, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax (801) 584-
6496 or by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the

Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment
(EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for
this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it
will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the
Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2017.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08472 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 68488]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4031-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New York; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4031-DR), dated September 13, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 13, 2011.

    Oneida County for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-28600 Filed 11-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


REMOVAL CREDITS LINDEN ROSELLE SEWERAGE AUTHORITY Pollutant Acetone n Amyl Acetate n Butyl Acetate Ethyl Acetate Isobutyraldehyde (*) Isopropyl Acetate Isopropyl Ether (*) Methylene Chloride Methyl Cellosolve (*) No longer applicable: See the June 11, 2003 Federal Register Methyl Formate (*) 4 Methyl 2 pentanone Tetrahydrofuran Toluene Trieethylamine (*) Xylenes ( total: o+ m+ p) (*)

(*): represents a provisional removal credit for a pollutant not currently discharged by the affected industrial user.


[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31460]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-23-000]

Worsham-Steed Gas Storage, L.P.; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

May 23, 2008.
    Take notice that on May 12, 2008, Worsham-Steed Gas Storage, L.P.
(Worsham-Steed), an intrastate natural-gas storage company, filed a
petition for rate approval of market based rates for transportation
services pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's
Regulations. Worsham-Steed requests that the Commission authorize it to
charge market-based rates for its transportation services pursuant to
section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday, June 4, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12207 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 50663-50664]
[DOCID:fr27au08-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58401; File No. SR-ISE-2008-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Price
Improvement Mechanism

August 21, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 31, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its Price Improvement Mechanism
(PIM) auction eligibility requirements to eliminate the requirement
that there be at least three market makers quoting the relevant series.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In order to provide additional opportunities for price improvement,
the Exchange proposes to expand the PIM auction process. The Exchange's
PIM permits Electronic Access Members (``EAMs'') to provide penny price
improvement for agency orders.\3\ ISE's current rules require, among
other things, that an EAM enter an order into the PIM only when there
are at least three market makers quoting in the options series. The
Exchange is now proposing to eliminate this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A crossing transaction consists of an order the EAM
represents as agent and a counter-side order. The counter-side order
may represent interest for the EAM's own account or interest the EAM
may have solicited from one or more parties, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that orders should be denied the
benefits of the PIM auction simply because there may be less than three
ISE market makers quoting in a particular series. The Exchange believes
this is a reasonable modification designed to provide additional
flexibility for members to obtain executions on behalf of their
customers while continuing to provide a meaningful, competitive
auction.
    In support of its proposal, the Exchange notes the ISE and other
options exchanges already have provisions within their rules that
permit price improvement in non-standard increments without a condition
that there be a minimum number of market makers quoting in the
particular series. For example, ISE has electronic auction mechanisms
for crossing agency order with facilitation or solicited orders
(referred to as the ``Facilitation Mechanism'' and ``Solicited Order
Mechanism'') in ``split price'' increments (e.g., $1.025, $1.05 and
$1.075 for series trading in $0.05 increments. The Facilitation and
Solicited Order Mechanisms do not require that there be any minimum
number of ISE market makers quoting in the particular series.\4\
Further, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') has an
electronic auction mechanism for crossing agency orders for 500
contracts or more with solicited orders (referred to as the
``Solicitation Auction Mechanism'') in increments as small as $0.01.
This CBOE Solicitation Auction Mechanism does not require that there be
any minimum number of CBOE market makers quoting in the particular
series.\5\ Finally, the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') has a procedure
that permits a member who enters an agency order in penny increments
(which is then rounded and displayed at the standard increment price)
to enter a contra-side order in penny increments after the agency order
has been exposed at the rounded price for three seconds. This NOM
crossing procedure does not require that there be any minimum number of
NOM market makers quoting in the particular series.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ISE Rule 716.
    \5\ See CBOE Rule 6.74B.
    \6\ When using the NOM crossing procedure to achieve an
execution in penny increments, there is no requirement that there be
any NOM market makers quoting the particular series or that they
even be aware that the initiating NOM member is attempting to cross
an order in an undisplayed penny increment. For example, a NOM
member could enter an agency limit order to buy at $1.03 that is
rounded and displayed at $1.00, wait three seconds, then enter a
principal or solicited order to sell at $1.03. Although the
initiating member knows it has entered an agency order to buy at
$1.03, other market participants would only see the size of the
agency order displayed on the bid at $1.00. See NOM Chapter IV,
Section 5, Chapter VI, Sections 7(b) and 10, and Chapter VII,
Sections 6 and 12. The Exchange understands that NOM's method of
crossing orders in non-standard increments differs from ISE's PIM in
so much as PIM will allocate the initiating Member a certain minimum
participation entitlement if certain conditions are met (e.g., after
public customer orders, 40% of the order is allocated to the
initiating Member if its single-price submission equals the best
price), whereas NOM does not have any such participation
entitlement. However, the Exchange does not believe this distinction
is dispositive to our proposal to eliminate the requirement that
there be a minimum number of quoters for a PIM auction. In this
regard, we note that participation entitlements already apply to the
ISE Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanisms and the CBOE
Solicitation Auction Mechanism. See ISE Rule 716 and CBOE Rule
6.74B. The Exchange also notes that an Agency Order displayed
through ISE's PIM process will receive the benefit of any price
improvement received during the auction, whereas an agency order
displayed on NOM generally will not get any price improvement beyond
its limit price (using the example above, once displayed at the
rounded price the agency order to buy will generally only execute at
$1.03, not better).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because these other mechanisms are currently able to offer price
improvement in a non-standard increment without a minimum quoter
requirement, the Exchange believes it is essential for competitive
reasons to be able to offer the same opportunities for price
improvement on ISE through the PIM.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular in that it is designed

to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, the proposed rule change will allow members to
guarantee executions and provide additional price improvement
opportunities to their customer's orders. The Exchange believes this is
a reasonable modification designed to provide additional flexibility
for members to obtain executions on behalf of their customers while
continuing to provide a meaningful, competitive auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-63 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-63. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2008-63 and should be submitted on or before September 17, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. E8-19821 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 29548]
[DOCID:fr21my08-100]

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

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 17a-22; SEC File No. 270-202; OMB Control No. 3235-0196.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
     Rule 17a-22 (17 CFR 240.17a-22)--Supplemental Material of
Registered Clearing Agencies
    Rule 17a-22 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \1\ requires all registered clearing agencies to file with the
Commission three copies of all materials they issue or make generally
available to their participants or other entities with whom they have a
significant relationship. The filings with the Commission must be made
within ten days after the materials are issued or made generally
available. When the Commission is not the clearing agency's appropriate
regulatory agency, the clearing agency must file one copy of the
material with its appropriate regulatory agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is responsible for overseeing clearing agencies and
uses the information filed pursuant to Rule 17a-22 to determine whether
a clearing agency is implementing procedural or policy changes. The
information filed aides the Commission in determining whether such
changes are consistent with the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange
Act. Also, the Commission uses the information to determine whether a
clearing agency has changed its rules without reporting the actual or
prospective change to the Commission as required under Section 19(b) of
the Exchange Act.
    The respondents to Rule 17a-22 are registered clearing agencies.
The frequency of filings made by clearing agencies pursuant to Rule
17a-22 varies but on average there are approximately 200 filings per
year per active clearing agency. The Commission staff estimates that
each response requires approximately .25 hour (fifteen minutes), which
represents the time it takes for a staff person at the clearing agency
to properly identify a document subject to the rule, print and makes
copies, and mail that document to the Commission. Thus, the total
annual burden for all active clearing agencies is 300 hours (1,200
multiplied by .25 hour) and a total of 50 hours (1,200 responses
multiplied by .25 hour, divided by 6 active clearing agencies) per year
are expended by each respondent to comply with the rule.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to: R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 60
days of this notice.

    Dated: May 14, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-11281 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37757-37759]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14917]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0468; FRL-9826-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate
matter (PM) emissions from open burning and wood-burning devices. We
are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES:  Any comments must arrive by July 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0468, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Rule 444 subdivision (g) and
Rule 445 subdivision (h), related to fees and penalties respectively,
were excluded from the versions of the rules submitted for
consideration by the EPA for SIP approval.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD................................             444  Open Burning............        05/03/13        06/11/13
SCAQMD................................             445  Wood Burning Devices....        05/03/13        06/11/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find that the submittal for SCAQMD Rules 444 and 445 meets the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved earlier versions of Rule 444 and Rule 445 into the SIP
on April 8, 2002 (67 FR 16644) and June 11, 2009 (74 FR 27716)
respectively. The SCAQMD adopted revisions to Rule 444 on November 7,
2008, but did not submit them to us. The SCAQMD adopted additional
revisions to Rule 444 and revisions to Rule 445 on May 3, 2013, and
CARB submitted these revised rules to us on June 11, 2013.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Emissions of VOCs and NOX help produce ground-level
ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and
the environment. PM emissions contribute to effects that are harmful to
human health and the environment, including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and
ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit
regulations that control NOX, VOC and PM emissions.
    Rule 444 is designed to minimize the impacts of smoke and other air
pollutants generated by open burning conducted within the SCAQMD.
Changes from the SIP approved rule include the following: (a) Forecast
criteria for issuing permissive, marginal, and no-burn days was
modified to be based on the Air Quality Index rather than on 1-hour
ozone forecasted values; (b) forecast criteria for allowing a
permissive burn day was amended to exclude days in which a ``Mandatory
Winter Burning Curtailment'' day is in effect, as provided in Rule 445;
(c) limited exemptions were added for burning to protect crops from
freezing and for product testing; (d) daily maximum agricultural and
prescribed burning acreage was increased to account for less permissive
burn days resulting from the new no burn day

forecast criteria (total emissions over the season/year remain the
same); (e) new requirements were added for burning associated with
pyrotechnics used in filmmaking, fire prevention/suppression training,
prescribed burning and agricultural burning; (f) definitions were added
or amended for clarity; and (g) other minor editorial changes and
clarifications were made to the rule.
    Rule 445 is designed to minimize the impacts of smoke and other air
pollutants generated during the use of wood burning devices. The rule
establishes requirements for the sale, operation, and installation of
such devices. Changes from the SIP approved rule include the following:
(a) The ``Mandatory Winter Burning Curtailment'' provision was modified
to reduce the forecast threshold for a given source/receptor area from
35 to 30 [micro]g/m3 and to add a new provision describing when such
curtailment would apply basin-wide; (b) new wood-labeling requirements
for wood suppliers were added; (c) a provision was removed which
allowed uncertified wood-burning devices to be installed in existing
homes if emission equivalency could be demonstrated; (d) modifications
were made to clarify that cookstove and wood labeling exemptions apply
only to commercial cooking; and (e) the definition of ``Wood Burning
Device'' was modified to include both open and enclosed devices. EPA's
technical support documents (TSDs) contain more detailed information
about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability requirements consistently include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to
implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. The Los
Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South Coast) is currently designated as
an extreme 1-hr ozone nonattainment area and an extreme 8-hr ozone
nonattainment area, and is also designated nonattainment for the 1997
annual, 1997 24-hour, and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) standards (40 CFR 81.305). Open burning emits direct
PM2.5, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are regulated as precursors
to PM2.5 and ozone in the South Coast. Therefore, SCAQMD
must implement RACM for open burning and residential wood burning if
those measures will advance attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5 or ozone in the South
Coast, when considered collectively with other reasonable measures.
Additional control measures may be required pursuant to CAA section
172(c)(1) if both: (1) Additional measures are reasonably available;
and (2) these additional reasonably available measures will advance
attainment in the area when considered collectively.
    The South Coast is also currently designated as a serious
nonattainment area for the PM-10 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). On June 12,
2013, however, EPA signed a final rule to redesignate the area to
attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS, which will become effective 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register. See ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air
Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast Air Basin; Approval
of PM10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation to Attainment for
the PM10 Standard,'' pre-publication final rule signed June
12, 2013. Thus, we are not evaluating Rule 444 and 445 for compliance
with BACT/BACM requirements in this rulemaking.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the statutory
requirements concerning enforceability and SIP relaxations as
interpreted in EPA guidance. Rule 444 and 445 are generally as
stringent as or more stringent than analogous rules in other California
Districts. As necessary, in separate rulemakings, EPA will take action
on the State's RACM demonstrations for PM2.5 and ozone based
on evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their
overall potential to advance the applicable attainment dates in the
South Coast. See 40 CFR 51.1010, 51.912(d). Our TSDs have more
information on our evaluation and recommendations for additional
control measures which may be reasonably available.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all applicable
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 12, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-14917 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 107)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26952-26954]
[DOCID:fr05jn09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0385]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal,
Sturgeon Bay, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily revise the operating
regulations for the Maple-Oregon Bridge at Mile 4.17 over the Sturgeon
Bay Ship Canal in Sturgeon Bay, WI. This action was requested by the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (Wisconsin DOT) to facilitate
vehicular traffic in downtown Sturgeon Bay during the rehabilitation of
the Michigan Street Bridge at Mile 4.30 over the Sturgeon Bay Ship
Canal. This final rule is expected to reflect the need for bridge
openings for the Maple-Oregon Bridge during the Michigan Street Bridge
rehabilitation and still provide for the reasonable needs of
navigation.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 6 a.m. on June 1,
2009 to 6 p.m. on November 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0385 and are available by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0385
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 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Blair Stanifer, Bridge Management
Specialist, Coast Guard Ninth District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory 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 the request to revise the operating
schedule for this temporary final rule included extensive preliminary
coordination with known affected marine entities, Wisconsin DOT, and
the City of Sturgeon Bay, WI, and resulted in a temporary drawbridge
schedule that would not significantly impact either vehicular traffic
or known navigation.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. As noted above the Coast Guard has
conducted extensive preliminary coordination with known affected marine
entities, the Wisconsin DOT and the City of Sturgeon Bay, WI and
determined that the impact on navigation will be minimal as the bridge
will continue to open on demand for commercial vessels and public
vessels and on the hour for recreational vessels from March 15 through
December 31, and from January 1 through March 14, for any vessel
provided at least notice is given at least 12 hours advance. This is
the same schedule under which the Michigan Street Bridge currently
operates under 33 CFR 117.1101. During renovation the Michigan Street
Bridge will remain in the open position and vehicular traffic is
expected to use the Maple-Oregon Bridge as an alternate route. Repeated
openings would likely cause significant congestion on the vehicular
approaches to the bridge. Hourly openings will allow vehicular traffic
to plan accordingly and will minimally affect recreational vessels.

Background and Purpose

    Wisconsin DOT requested a temporary change to the operating
schedule of the Maple-Oregon Bridge at Mile 4.17 over the Sturgeon Bay
Ship Canal to facilitate the rehabilitation of the Michigan Street
Bridge. The Maple-Oregon Double-Leaf Bascule Bridge navigation span
provides for a design clearance of 25 feet above Mean Low

Water in the closed to navigation position. The waterway carries
commercial, recreational and public vessel traffic. The bridge is
normally required to open on signal for vessels year-round under the
general provisions of 33 CFR 117.5. In order to perform the
rehabilitation to the Michigan Street Bridge with a minimum of
disruptions, Wisconsin DOT has requested that the Maple-Oregon Bridge
be required to open for recreational vessels only on the hour, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, between March 15 and December 31. The Maple-
Oregon Bridge will continue to open on demand for commercial and public
vessels during this period. Between January 1 and March 14, the Maple-
Oregon Bridge will open if notice is provided at least 12 hours in
advance of a vessel's time of intended passage. As the Michigan Street
Bridge currently operates under this schedule as outlined in 33 CFR
117.1101, Wisconsin DOT feels that operating the Maple-Oregon Bridge
with this schedule will maintain the expectations of the waterway users
and vehicular traffic while the Michigan Street Bridge is rehabilitated
in the open to navigation position. The request from Wisconsin DOT also
included undefined periods of time where the Maple-Oregon Bridge would
not be required to open for any vessel as work being performed on the
Michigan Street Bridge would necessitate the occasional, short-term
closing of the waterway. The dates of these closure periods can not,
and have not, been identified due to the nature of the work, but
Wisconsin DOT is required to provide those dates to the Coast Guard 10-
14 days in advance of anticipated closure periods. The Coast Guard will
issue Broadcast and Local Notices to Mariners covering those dates when
they have been finalized.

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. This rule is not ``significant'' under
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security. The temporary drawbridge schedule still provides for the
passing of vessels throughout the entire proposed work period. The
unspecified closure periods, which are necessary for a limited amount
of rehabilitation work being performed on the Michigan Street Bridge,
will be published as early as possible in the Ninth Coast Guard
District Local and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners prior to the work
beginning.

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 will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of recreational vessels
intending to transit the bridge from 6 a.m. on June 1, 2009 to 6 p.m.
on November 15, 2010, and marine facilities that provide services for
recreational vessels. However, this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. The Maple-Oregon Bridge was designed to pass a
substantial amount of waterway users without the need for an opening.
Vessels that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time.
The remaining vessels will still be granted openings once an hour on
the hour, twenty-four hours a day. Before the effective period, we will
issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can 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 would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
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 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. From 6 a.m. on June 1, 2009 to 6 p.m. on November 15, 2010,
temporarily add paragraph (c) to Sec.  117.1101 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1101  Sturgeon Bay.

* * * * *
    (c) The draw of the Maple-Oregon Bridge at Mile 4.17 at Sturgeon
Bay, shall operate as follows:
    (1) From June 1 through December 31, 2009, and from March 15
through November 15, 2010 the draw need open for recreational vessels
only on the hour, 24 hours a day.
    (2) Commercial and Public vessels shall be passed at all times.
    (3) From January 1 through March 14, 2010, the draw shall open on
signal for all vessels if notice is given at least 12 hours in advance
of a vessel's intended time of passage.

    Dated: May 18, 2009.
D.R. Callahan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. E9-13103 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P