[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1359-1360]
[FR Doc No: 2011-168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1063]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Vermillion River, Lafayette
Parish, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Milton (LA 92) bridge across the Vermillion River, mile 37.6, in
Milton, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary to
allow timely bridge rehabilitation to improve overall traffic, boat and
pedestrian safety. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 10, 2011
through 11:59 p.m. on February 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1063 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1063 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are 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 rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Jim Wetherington, Bridge Management Specialist,
District 8 Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; 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: The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development requests a temporary deviation from the published
regulation for the Milton (LA 92) bridge (4 feet vertical clearance
when closed at mean High water) across the Vermillion River as required
by 33 CFR 117.5: Except as otherwise authorized or required by this
part, drawbridges must open promptly and fully for the passage of
vessels when a request or signal to open is given in accordance with
this subpart. Currently, according to 33 CFR 117.509(b)(4), the draw of
the Milton (LA 92) bridge shall open on signal; except that from 6 p.m.
to 10 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice
is given.
    The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development requests
a deviation to allow the bridge to remain closed to marine traffic from
12:01 a.m. on January 10, 2011 through 11:59 p.m. on February 18, 2011.
This time period has been coordinated through the waterway users and
the responsible Coast Guard Units. There is no alternative route around
the project.
    This deviation will allow the rehabilitation of the bridge to be
completed in a timely fashion. This rehab is necessary to extend the
bridge life and optimize traffic and boat operations. It will also
improve overall traffic, boat and pedestrian safety.
    The deviation dates and schedule were chosen to minimize
significant effect on vessel traffic. Any vessel that does not require
an opening of the drawspan may pass at any time; the vertical clearance
is four feet mean high water when closed.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. This deviation may be terminated/
cancelled at anytime via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-168 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46237-46238]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2652-000]

Caddo Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Caddo Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 1, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in

docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 12, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17708 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 31611]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12921]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9678-4]

Proposed CERCLA Section 122(g)(4) Administrative Agreement and
Order on Consent for the Mercury Refining Superfund Site, Towns of
Guilderland and Colonie, Albany County, NY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region II, of a
proposed de minimis administrative settlement agreement and order on
consent pursuant to Section 122(g)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(4),
between EPA and Recycle Technologies, Inc., American Lamp Recycling,
LLC, Lighting Resources, LLC, Western Finger Lakes Solid Waste
Management Authority, H-B Instrument Company, Inc. and H.J. Heinz
Company (hereinafter ``Settling Parties'') pertaining to the Mercury
Refining Superfund Site (``Site'') located in the Towns of Guilderland
and Colonie, Albany County, New York. The settlement requires specified
individual payments by each settling party to the EPA Hazardous
Substance Superfund Mercury Refining Superfund Site Special Account,
which combined total $76,562.04. Each settling party's individual
settlement amount is considered to be either that party's fair share of
cleanup costs incurred and anticipated to be incurred in the future,
plus a ``premium'' that accounts for, among other things, uncertainties
associated with the costs of that future work at the Site, or the
amount that EPA has determined the settling party can afford to pay.
The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to Sections 106
and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, relating to the Site,
subject to limited reservations, and protection from contribution
actions or claims as provided by Sections 113(f)(2) and 122(g)(5) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(f)(2) and 9622(g)(5). For thirty (30) days
following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive
written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all
comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that
indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or
inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection at EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at EPA Region II offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-
1866. Comments should be sent to the individual identified below and
should reference the Mercury Refining Superfund Site, Index No. CERCLA-
02-2009-2006. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement,
please contact the individual identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon E. Kivowitz, Assistant Regional
Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 10, 2012.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, EPA, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2012-12921 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18956-18958]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08193]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0377]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 17 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted April 8, 2017. The exemptions expire
on April 8, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On March 8, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (82 FR 13045). That notice listed 17 applicants' case histories.
The 17 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 17 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 17
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, cataract, central retinal vein occlusion,
complete loss of vision, corneal scar, phthisis bulbi, prosthetic eye,
retinal scar, and toxoplasmosis scar. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed. Eleven of the applicants were
either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood.
    The six individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a range of 11 to 42 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 17 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 3 to 46
years. In the past three years, two drivers were involved in crashes
and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 8, 2017
notice (82 FR 13045).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 17 applicants, two drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These

conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as
interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding
have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years,
most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to
believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate
commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate
commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to
achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year
period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 17 applicants
listed in the notice of March 8, 2017 (82 FR 13045).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 17 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 17 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10):

Chad C. Burnett (IL)
Lesco R. Chubb (GA)
Stephen M. Currie (TX)
Thomas C. Fitzpatrick (ME)
Robert D. Hattabaugh (AR)
Wade R. Higgins (NC)
Daniel L. Holman (UT)
Don N. Hood (AR)
James S. Hummel (PA)
Robert R. Martin (VA)
James C. Montgomery (TN)
Huber N. Pena Ortega (CO)
Garry W. Perkins (NH)
Charles M. Reese (UT)
Wilbur Robinson, Jr. (NJ)
Thomas R. Test (VA)
Steven L. Tiefenthaler (IA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: April 17, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-08193 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73438-73441]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 3, 100, and 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0251]
RIN 1625-ZA32

Reorganization of Sector Baltimore and Hampton Roads; Conforming
Amendments

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) to reflect changes it has made to the boundaries of Sector
Baltimore's and Sector Hampton Roads' Marine Inspection Zone and
Captain of the Port Zones. These conforming amendments are necessary to
ensure the CFR accurately reflects these boundary changes that were
made November 22, 2013. These amendments are not expected to have a
substantive impact on the public.

DATES: This rule is effective December 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Materials mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket [USCG-2013-0251] and are 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. You may also find
this docket, USCG-2013-0251, online at http://www.regulations.gov. The
following link will take you directly to the docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2013-0251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Troy Luna, Fifth Coast Guard District, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Regulatory History

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) before
this final rule. The Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)
because the changes it makes are conforming amendments involving agency
organization. The Coast Guard also finds good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for not publishing an NPRM because the changes will
have no substantive effect on the public, and notice and comment are
therefore unnecessary. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the rule effective fewer than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On November 22, 2013, the Coast Guard reassigned Station Ocean City
1 to Sector Baltimore and redefined the boundary lines separating
Sector Baltimore and Sector Hampton Roads. See Operating Facility
Change Order (OFCO) No. 024-13 Change One which is available in the
docket for this rule. Under 14 U.S.C. 93, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard has authority to change the location of Coast Guard shore
establishments. The previous organization of Sector Baltimore and
Sector Hampton Roads is described and reflected in regulations, which
also contain contact details and other references to Sector Baltimore
and Hampton Roads. These conforming amendments update those regulations
so that they contain current information.

C. Background

    During 2011, Sector Baltimore requested that the Coast Guard Fifth
District examine the feasibility of shifting Operational Control of
Ocean City and Worcester County, Maryland from Sector Hampton Roads to
Sector Baltimore. The analysis reviewed potential workload increases to
offshore Search and Rescue, and increased activities for Prevention,
Response and Logistics Departments at Sector Baltimore.
    The Coast Guard has approved the shift of Ocean City and Worcester
County, Maryland Operational Control to Sector Baltimore. This move is
intended to improve field-level

operations in the region; improve all-hazard response challenges; and
provide a single interface point for state and local officials.

D. Discussion of Changes

    This rule amends 33 CFR part 3 to reflect the new boundaries of
Sector Baltimore and Sector Hampton Roads. The revised Sec.  3.25-10
reflects the updated boundaries of Sector Hampton Roads Marine
Inspection Zone and COTP Zone boundary lines resulting from the shift
of Ocean City and Worcester County, Maryland to Sector Baltimore. The
revised Sec.  3.25-15 reflects the updated boundaries of Sector
Baltimore's Marine Inspection Zone and COTP Zone boundary lines
resulting in the addition of Ocean City and Worcester County, Maryland.
    This rule also amends 33 CFR 100.501, Special Local Regulations;
Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District. Specifically, it
amends the Table to Sec.  100.501, by moving the Ocean City Maryland
Offshore Grand Prix marine event listed in the Coast Guard Sector
Hampton Roads--COTP Zone portion of the table to the Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore--COTP Zone portion of the table.
    Finally, this rule amends 33 CFR 165.506, Safety Zones; Fifth Coast
Guard District Fireworks Displays. Specifically, it amends the Table to
Sec.  165.506 by moving three safety zone entries--
     North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD, Safety Zone;
     Isle of Wight Bay, Ocean City, MD, Safety Zone; and
     Assawoman Bay, Fenwick Island--Ocean City, MD, Safety
Zone, from the Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads--COTP Zone portion of
the table to the Coast Guard Sector Baltimore--COTP Zone portion of the
table.

E. 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. Because this rule
involves internal agency organization and non-substantive changes, it
will not impose any costs on the public.

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. This rule does not require a general NPRM and therefore is
exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Although this rule is exempt, we have considered its potential impact
on small entities and found that it will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Technical Standards

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

13. 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 shifting operational control of Coast
Guard activities within Ocean City and Worcester County, Maryland from
Sector Hampton Roads to Sector Baltimore. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(b) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 3

    Organization and functions (Government agencies).

33 CFR Part 100

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

33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR parts 3, 100, and 165 as follows:

PART 3--COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE INSPECTION
ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 3 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 92 & 93; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23).

0
2. Revise Sec.  3.25-10 to read as follows:

Sec.  3.25-10  Sector Hampton Roads Marine Inspection Zone and Captain
of the Port Zone.

    Sector Hampton Roads' office is located in Portsmouth, VA. The
boundaries of Sector Hampton Roads' Marine Inspection and Captain of
the Port Zone start at a point on the Virginia-Maryland boundary at a
point 38[deg] 01'36'' N latitude, 75[deg]14'34'' W longitude, thence
south east to a point 37[deg]19'14'' N latitude, 72[deg]13'13'' W
longitude; thence east to the outermost extent of the EEZ at a point
37[deg]19'14'' N latitude, 71[deg]02'54'' W longitude; thence south
along the outermost extent of the EEZ to a point 36[deg]33'00'' N
latitude, 71[deg]29'34'' W longitude; thence west to the Virginia-North
Carolina boundary at a point 36[deg]33'00'' N latitude, 75[deg]52'00''
W longitude; thence west along the Virginia-North Carolina boundary to
the intersection of Virginia-North Carolina-Tennessee at a point
36[deg]35'17'' N latitude, 81[deg]40'38'' W longitude; thence north and
west along the Virginia-Tennessee boundary to the intersection of
Virginia-Tennessee-Kentucky at a point 36[deg]36'03'' N latitude,
83[deg]40'31'' W longitude; thence northeast along the Virginia State
boundary to the intersection of the Virginia-West Virginia State
boundaries at a point 39[deg]07'57'' N latitude, 77[deg]49'42'' W
longitude; thence southwest along the Loudoun County, VA boundary to
the intersection with Fauquier County, VA at a point 39[deg]00'50'' N
latitude, 77[deg]57'43'' W longitude; thence east along the Loudoun
County, VA boundary to the intersection with Prince William County, VA
boundary at a point 38[deg]56'33'' N latitude, 77[deg]39'18'' W
longitude; thence south along the Prince William and Fauquier County VA
boundaries to the intersection of Fauquier, Prince William, and
Stafford County, VA at a point 38[deg]33'24'' N latitude,
77[deg]31'54'' W longitude; thence east along the Prince William and
Stafford County, VA boundaries to the western bank of the Potomac River
at a point 38[deg]30'13'' N latitude, 77[deg]18'00'' W longitude;
thence south along the Stafford County, VA boundary to a point
38[deg]22'30'' N latitude, 77[deg]18'14'' W longitude; thence south and
east along the boundary between the southern bank of the Potomac River
and Stafford, King George, Westmoreland, and Northumberland Counties in
Virginia to a point 37[deg]53'11'' N latitude, 76[deg]14'15'' W
longitude; thence east along the Maryland-Virginia boundary as it
proceeds across the Chesapeake Bay and Delmarva Peninsula to the point
of origin at 38[deg]01'36'' N latitude, 75[deg]14'34'' W longitude.
0
3. Revise Sec.  3.25-15 to read as follows:

Sec.  3.25-15  Sector Baltimore Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of
the Port Zone.

    Sector Baltimore's office is located in Baltimore, MD. The
boundaries of Sector Baltimore's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of
the Port Zone start at a point 38[deg]01'36'' N latitude,
75[deg]14'34'' W longitude; thence south east to a point 37[deg]19'14''
N latitude, 72[deg]13'13'' W longitude; thence north west to a point at
38[deg]26'25'' N latitude, 74[deg]26'46'' W longitude; thence west to
the intersection of the Maryland-Delaware boundary and the coast at a
point 38[deg]27'03'' N latitude, 75[deg]02' 55'' W longitude; thence
west to a point 38[deg]27'15'' N latitude, 75[deg]30'00'' W longitude
on the Delaware-Maryland boundary; thence proceeding along the
Delaware-Maryland boundary west to a point at 38[deg]27'37'' N
latitude, 75[deg]41'35'' W longitude; thence proceeding north to the
Maryland-Delaware-Pennsylvania boundary at a point 39[deg]43'22'' N
latitude, 75[deg]47'17'' W longitude; thence west along the
Pennsylvania-Maryland boundary to the Pennsylvania-Maryland-West
Virginia boundary at a point 39[deg]43'16'' N latitude, 79[deg]28'36''
W longitude; thence south and east along the Maryland-West Virginia
boundary to the intersection of the Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia
boundaries at a point 39[deg]19'17'' N latitude, 77[deg]43'08'' W
longitude; thence southwest along the Loudoun County, VA boundary to
the intersection with Fauquier County, VA at a point 39[deg]00'50'' N
latitude, 77[deg]57'43'' W longitude; thence east along the Loudoun
County, VA boundary to the intersection with Prince William County, VA
boundary at a point 38[deg]56'33'' N latitude, 77[deg]39'18'' W
longitude; thence south along the Prince William and Fauquier County VA
boundaries to the intersection of Fauquier, Prince William, and
Stafford County, VA at a point 38[deg]33'24'' N latitude,
77[deg]31'54'' W longitude; thence south east to a point 38[deg]20'30''
N latitude, 77[deg]18'14'' W longitude; thence south and east along the
boundary between the southern bank of the Potomac River and Stafford,
King George, Westmoreland, and Northumberland Counties in Virginia to a
point 37[deg]53'11'' N latitude, 76[deg]14'15'' W longitude; thence
east along the Maryland-Virginia boundary as it proceeds across the
Chesapeake Bay and Delmarva Peninsula to the point of origin at
38[deg]01'36'' N latitude, 75[deg]14'34'' W longitude.

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

Sec.  100.501  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  100.501, amend the Table to Sec.  100.501 by:

0
a. Redesignating entry (c.)4 as (b.)21, and
0
b. Redesignating entries (c.)5 through (c.)12, as (c.)4 through (c.)11,
respectively.

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
6. 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.

Sec.  165.506  [Amended]

0
7. In Sec.  165.506, amend the Table to Sec.  165.506 by:
0
a. Redesignating entries (c.)1, (c.)2, and (c.)3, as (b.)23, (b.)24,
and (b.)25, respectively, and
0
b. Redesignating entries (c.)4 through (c.)24, as (c.)1 through (c.)21,
respectively.

    Dated: December 2, 2013.
Katia Cervoni,
Interim Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-29102 Filed 12-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 14779]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05604]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80257; File No. SR-IEX-2017-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Amend IEX Rule 16.135 To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for
Managed Fund Shares

March 16, 2017.
    On January 19, 2017, Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend IEX Rule
16.135 to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on February 8, 2017.\3\ The Commission has received no comments on the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79940 (February 2,
2017), 82 FR 9858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is March 25, 2017. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates May
9, 2017, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-IEX-2017-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05604 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P