[Federal Register: May 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 84)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23212-23214]
[DOCID:fr03my10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0021]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a security zone at U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) Base Support Unit Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA.
This permanent security zone is necessary to protect military and
visiting foreign vessels, waterfront facilities, and the maritime
public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive
acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. Entry into or
movement within this security zone is prohibited without the permission
of the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 2, 2010. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before June 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0021 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer, Sector Seattle Waterways
Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0021), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0021'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0021'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one June 2, 2010 using one of the

four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe
a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would
aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by
a later notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer at the telephone number or e-mail
address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this notice.

Background and Purpose

    The potential for terrorist acts requires enhanced security of our
ports, harbors, and vessels. This proposed rule will establish a
security zone to protect waterfront facilities, persons, and vessels
from subversive or terrorist acts on the waters surrounding USCG Base
Support Unit (BSU) Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. The Coast Guard
Captain of the Port Puget Sound finds sufficient cause to require this
security zone to protect military vessels, facilities and the maritime
public located at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. This proposed security zone
will be continuously activated in order to maintain the security of
both moored vessels and permanent facilities regardless of the physical
presence of military vessels within the zone.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would establish a permanent security zone
necessary to protect military and visiting foreign vessels, waterfront
facilities, and the maritime public from destruction, loss, or injury
from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar
nature. The security zone would encompass all waters in Elliot Bay east
of a line from 47[deg] 35.450' N 122[deg] 20.585' W to 47[deg] 35.409'
N 122[deg] 20.585' W at USCG BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle,
WA. Entry into or movement within this security zone is prohibited
without the permission of the Captain of the Port or a Designated
Representative.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule is not
a significant regulatory action because it does not adversely affect
the transit of maritime vessels or the recreational boating public to
major waterways.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the security zone.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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.

Civil Justice Reform

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

power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

    2. Add Sec.  165.1334 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1334  Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36,
Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA.

    (a) Location: The following area is a security zone: All waters in
Elliot Bay east of a line from 47[deg] 35.450' N 122[deg] 20.585' W to
47[deg] 35.409' N 122[deg]20.585' W at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle,
WA.
    (b) Regulations: Under 33 CFR part 165, subpart D, no person or
vessel may enter or remain in the security zone established by this
section without the permission of the Captain of the Port Puget Sound
or Designated Representative.
    (c) Authorization: To request authorization to operate within this
security zone, contact United States Coast Guard Sector Seattle Joint
Harbor Operations Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 6, 2010.
S.E. Englebert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010-10209 Filed 4-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36912-36913]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance: Independence Municipal
Airport (IDP), Independence, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent of Waiver with respect to land use change from
aeronautical to non-aeronautical.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal from the City of Independence, KS, to release a 7.857 acre
parcel of land from the federal obligation dedicating it to
aeronautical use and to authorize this parcel to be used for revenue-
producing, non-aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106. In addition, one copy
of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to:
Kelly Paussauer, City Manager, City of Independence, 811 W Laurel
Street, Independence, KS 67301,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, Telephone number
(816) 329-2603, Fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to change three parcels of land totaling 7.857 acres of airport
property at the Independence Municipal Airport (IDP) from aeronautical
use to non-aeronautical for revenue producing use. This parcel will be
leased to VSE Aviation Services, LLC to expand their existing building
and construct a parking lot.
    No airport landside or airside facilities are presently located on
this parcel, nor are airport developments contemplated in the future.
There is no current use of the surface of the parcel. The parcel will
serve as a revenue producing lot with the proposed change from
aeronautical to non-aeronautical. The request submitted by the Sponsor
meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the change to non-aeronautical status of the
property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the
airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no
sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Independence Municipal Airport (IDP) is proposing the use
release of 7.857 acres of land from aeronautical to non-aeronautical.
The use release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation
Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired
airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The rental of
the subject property will result in the land at the Independence
Municipal Airport (IDP) being changed from aeronautical to non-
aeronautical use and release the lands from the conditions of the
Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c) (2) (B) (i) and (iii), the airport
will receive fair market rental value for the property. The annual
income from rent payments will generate a long-term, revenue-producing
stream that will further the Sponsor's obligation under FAA Grant
Assurance number 24, to make the Independence Municipal Airport as
financially self-sufficient as possible. Following is a legal
description of the subject airport property at the Independence
Municipal Airport (IDP):
    A tract of land located in a portion of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 21, Township 33 South, Range 15 East of the 6th P.M.,
Montgomery County, Kansas, being more particularly described as written
by William A. Booe, LS 1046, 5-5-2022: Commencing at the Southeast
corner of the Southeast Quarter; thence S 88[deg]15'13'' W, along the
South line of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 1655. 78 feet; thence
N 01[deg]24'44'' W, a distance of 395.10 feet to the Point of
Beginning; thence N 01[deg]24'44'' W, a distance of 610.00 feet; thence
S 88[deg]35'16'' W, a distance of 321. 77 feet; thence S 01[deg]24'44''
E, a distance of 610.00 feet; thence N 88[deg]35'16'' E, a distance of
321. 77 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 4.506 acres. And a
tract of land located in a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section
21, Township 33 South, Range 15 East of the 6th P.M., Montgomery
County, Kansas, being more particularly described as written by William
A. Booe, LS 1046, 5-5-2022: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the
Southeast Quarter; thence S 88[deg]15'13'' W, along the South line of
the Southeast Quarter a distance of 1655. 78 feet; thence N
01[deg]24'44'' W, a distance of 1005.10 feet;

thence S 88[deg]35'16'' W, a distance of 321.77 feet; thence S
89[deg]35'39'' W, a distance of 80.00 feet; thence S 88[deg]47'00'' W,
a distance of 158.02 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence S
88[deg]47'00'' W, a distance of 128.21 feet; thence S 01[deg]20'36'' E,
a distance of 128.32 feet; thence N 88[deg]47'00'' E, a distance of
128.53 feet; thence N 01[deg]29'10'' W, a distance of 128.32 feet to
the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.378 acres. And a tract of land
located in a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township
33 South, Range 15 East of the 6th P.M., Montgomery County, Kansas,
being more particularly described as written by William A. Booe, LS
1046, 5-5-2022: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southeast
Quarter; thence S 88[deg]15'13'' W, along the South line of the
Southeast Quarter a distance of 1655.78 feet; thence N 01[deg]24'44''
W, a distance of 1005.10 feet; thence S 88[deg]35'16'' W, a distance of
321. 77 feet; thence S 89[deg]35'39'' W, a distance of 80.00 feet to
the point of beginning; thence S 88[deg]47'00'' W, a distance of 158.02
feet; thence S 01[deg]29'10'' E a distance of 128.32 feet; thence S
88[deg]47'00'' W a distance of 128.53 feet; thence S 01[deg]20'36'' E a
distance of 380.38 feet; thence N 88[deg]51'48'' E a distance of 287.45
feet; thence N 01[deg]28'49'' W a distance of 509.10 feet to the point
of beginning. Containing 2.973 acres.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above. In addition, any person may upon request,
inspect the application, notice and other documents determined by the
FAA to be related to the application in person at the Independence
Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on June 14, 2022.
James A. Johnson,
Director, FAA Central Region, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-13195 Filed 6-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33784-33786]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0006]

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 eight individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in
one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on May 7, 2020. The exemptions
expire on May 7, 2022.

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 W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0006 and

choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To
be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Docket Operations.

B. 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.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 6, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from eight individuals requesting an exemption from vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the
public (85 FR 19924). The public comment period ended on May 6, 2020,
and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV 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.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the April 6, 2020, Federal
Register notice (85 FR 19924) and will not be repeated here.
    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 eight
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, macular scar, optic nerve atrophy,
prosthesis, retinal detachment, and retinal dysplasia. In most cases,
their eye conditions did not develop recently. Seven of the applicants
were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood. The individual who developed his vision condition as an
adult has had it for 6 years. Although each applicant has one eye that
does not meet the vision requirement in Sec.  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 a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. 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 applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging for 3 to 47 years. In the past 3 years, no
drivers were involved in crashes, and one driver was convicted of a
moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of
safety while driving with their vision impairment that demonstrates 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.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a certified medical examiner (ME) who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under Sec.  391.41; (2)
each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) each driver must 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 also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the eight exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the

vision requirement, Sec.  391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements
cited above:

Terry M. Baldwin (PA)
Samuel L. Eakman (PA)
Raymond C. King (OH)
Robert G. Lanning (VA)
Gary D. Larson (NE)
Larry Owen (TX)
John C. Perrone (PA)
Ronald D. Wilson (KY)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption
will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (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 prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-11844 Filed 6-1-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 52018]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21084]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2492-000]

Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 6 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 Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 6 LLC's application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 10, 2012.
    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 should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 21, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21084 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74189-74190]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2015-63]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Israel
Aerospace Industries Ltd

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-4012
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: 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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Hart<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 20, 2015.
Dale Bouffiou,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-4012

    Petitioner: Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 45.13(a)(1)
    Description of Relief Sought: Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (IAI)
seeks relief from the requirements of Sec.  45.13(a)(1) to permit
relief from the requirement to list the aircraft builder's name on the
aircraft identification plate for Gulfstream G150 and G280 model
aircraft.
[FR Doc. 2015-30109 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17406-17414]
[DOCID:fr15ap09-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R10-OW-2008-0745; FRL-8791-2]

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site Offshore of the Rogue River, OR

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 14, 2008, EPA published a proposed rule at 73 FR
60662 to designate an ocean dredged material disposal site located
offshore of the Rogue River, Oregon, and simultaneously withdrew an
earlier proposal. EPA observed a typographical error in the proposed
rule as published. In proposed rule, FR Doc. EPA-R10-OW-2008-0745, on
page 60670 in the issue of October 14, 2008, in the first column, the
very first coordinate was published as 42[deg]24'5.40'' N, but should
have been published as 42[deg]24'15.40'' N. The coordinate was
published correctly on page 60664 in the first column as
42[deg]24'15.40'' N. EPA received no comments on the proposed rule. EPA
did receive one letter, dated November 12, 2008, from the Department of
the Interior (DOI) stating that DOI had no comments. This action
finalizes the designation of the Rogue River ocean dredged material
disposal site, with the correct coordinates, pursuant to the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33
U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. The new site is needed primarily to serve as a
long-term location for the disposal of material dredged from the Rogue
River navigation channel. The new site will also serve to provide a
location for the disposal of dredged material for persons who have
received a permit for such disposal. The newly designated site will be
subject to ongoing monitoring and management as specified in this rule
and in the Site Management and Monitoring Plan, which is also finalized
as part of this action. The monitoring and management requirements will
help to ensure continued protection of the marine environment.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule will be effective May 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: For more information on this final rule, Docket ID No. EPA-
R10-OW-2008-0745, use one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for accessing the docket and materials related to the
final rule.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jonathan Freedman, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs
(ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, Washington 98101.

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business
hours at the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Library,
10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
For access to the documents at the Region 10 Library, contact the
Region 10 Library Reference Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER>, between the hours
of 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and between the hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Freedman, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs (ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or contact Jessica Winkler, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs (ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this final action include those who
seek or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged
material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. sections 1401 to
1445. EPA's action is relevant to persons, including organizations and
government bodies, seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean
waters offshore of the Rogue River, Oregon. Currently, the US Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) will be most impacted by this final action.
Potentially affected categories and persons include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category            Examples of potentially regulated persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government...........  US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
                                Projects, and other Federal Agencies
Industry and General Public..  Port Authorities, Marinas and Harbors,
                                Shipyards and Marine Repair Facilities,
                                Berth Owners
State, local and tribal        Governments owning and/or responsible for
 governments.                   ports, harbors, and/or berths,
                                Government agencies requiring disposal
                                of dredged material associated with
                                public works projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

2. Background

a. History of Disposal Site Offshore of the Rogue River, Oregon

    The final Rogue River ocean dredged material disposal site, or
areas in the same vicinity, were used by the Corps beginning in 1962.
When the MPRSA was enacted, the site became an ``interim'' site under
the ocean dumping regulations, a status superseded by later statutory
changes to the MPRSA. The site was selected for use by the Corps under
Section 103 of the MPRSA. That authority allows the Corps to select a
site for disposal when a site has not been designated. EPA concurred on
that selection and in 2003 approved the Corps' request to continue to
use the site through the end of the 2008 dredging season.
    From 1986 through 2006, over 1.1 million cubic yards (cy) of
dredged material were placed at the Rogue River site. A uniform
placement strategy, rather than point dumping, was applied to the
disposal of material at the site and regular bathymetric surveys were
conducted. Data collected from those surveys showed that persistent
mounding did not occur within the site or in the vicinity of the site.
Over the long-term, site capacity appears to be unconstrained based on
the historical and anticipated disposal volumes because material placed
redistributes out of the site, feeding the littoral cell.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP09.008

b. Location and Configuration of Final Rogue River Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site

    Figure 1, above, shows the Rogue River ocean dredged material
disposal site (Rogue River ODMDS or Site) EPA designates in this
action. The Site's configuration is expected to allow dredged material
disposed in shallower portions of the Site to naturally disperse into
the littoral zone without creating mounding conditions that could
contribute to adverse impacts to navigation. This final Site
configuration will allow EPA to ensure that disposal of dredged
material into the Site will be managed so that as much material as
possible is retained in the active littoral drift area to augment
shoreline building processes.
    The coordinates for the Rogue River ODMDS as finalized in this
action are, in North American Datum 83 (NAD 83):

42[deg]24'15.40'' N, 124[deg]26'52.39'' W
42[deg]24'03.40'' N, 124[deg]26'39.39'' W
42[deg]23'39.40'' N, 124[deg]27'17.40'' W
42[deg]23'51.40'' N, 124[deg]27'30.40'' W

    The Site occupies approximately 116 acres. The Site's final
dimensions are: 1,400-feet wide by 3,600-feet long, with Site depth
ranging from approximately 50 to 90 feet. The Site generally lies on
bottom contours sloping at a rate of 8/1000 feet to the west-southwest.
The disposal area, placement area, and drop zone for the Site are
identical.

c. Management and Monitoring of the Final Site

    The final Rogue River ODMDS is expected to receive sediments
dredged by the Corps to maintain the federally authorized navigation
project at the Rogue River, Oregon, and dredged material from other
persons who have obtained a permit for the disposal of dredged material
at the Site. The ocean dumping regulations do not require a
modification of any existing permits issued before this final action.
All persons using the Site are required to follow the final Site
Management and

Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Rogue River ODMDS which is available to
the public as part of this action. The SMMP includes management and
monitoring requirements to ensure that dredged materials disposed at
the Site are suitable for disposal in the ocean. The final SMMP
addresses the timing of disposal events to minimize interference with
other uses of ocean waters in the vicinity of the Site.

d. MPRSA Criteria

    EPA assessed this final action against the criteria of the MPRSA,
with particular emphasis on the general and specific regulatory
criteria of 40 CFR Part 228, and determined that the final site
designation satisfies those criteria.
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
    (1) Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial
or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).
    EPA's assessment of information available at the time of this final
rule included a review of the potential for interference with
navigation, recreation, shellfisheries, aquatic resources, commercial
fisheries, protected geologic features, and cultural and/or
historically significant areas. While limited overlap was found to
exist between disposal operations and salmon fishing, no observable
conflicts were identified. No evidence was found to suggest that the
final Site would cause interference with fisheries or with navigation
in the Rogue River navigation channel. The final Site has been used
over the past decades for dredged material disposal, most recently
pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA, as a site selected by the Corps
with EPA's concurrence. Mariners in this area are accustomed to Site
use.
    (2) Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels
or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).
    Based on EPA's review of modeling, monitoring data and history of
use, there is no indication that detectable contaminant concentrations
or water quality effects would reach any beach, shoreline, or other
area outside of the final Site. All dredged material proposed for
disposal will be evaluated according to the ocean dumping regulations
at 40 CFR 227.13 and guidance developed by EPA and the Corps. In
general, dredged material which meets the criteria under 40 CFR
227.13(b) is deemed environmentally acceptable for ocean dumping
without further testing. Dredged material which does not meet the
criteria of 40 CFR 227.13(b), must be further tested as required by 40
CFR 227.13(c). Suitable material can be disposed of at the Site.
Modeling work performed by the Corps at the Umpqua River, demonstrates
that water column turbidity, a temporary perturbation during disposal,
would dissipate for an anticipated 97% of coarser material within a few
minutes of disposal. The remaining 3% of the material, which would be
classified as fine-grained, would dissipate within a half hour. Over
time, some of the suitable disposed material would be expected to
migrate into the active littoral drift system.
    (3) If Site designation studies show that any interim disposal
sites do not meet the site selection criteria, use of such sites shall
be terminated as soon as any alternate site can be designated (40 CFR
228.5(c)).
    EPA's recent final rule at 73 FR 74983 (December 10, 2008) repealed
obsolete regulations under the MPRSA regarding interim ocean dumping
sites and interim ocean dumping criteria. EPA stated in the proposed
rule that there are no interim sites near the Rogue Site, however, the
category of ``interim site'' has since been removed from the ocean
dumping criteria.
    (4) The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control of any immediate adverse
impacts, and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size,
configuration, and location are to be determined as part of the
disposal site evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).
    EPA sized the final Site to meet this criterion. The final Site
tends to be moderately dispersive in the near-shore area and tends to
be less dispersive farther from shore. The overall stability of the
Site, as indicated by the lack of adverse mounding, is a significant
component of the justification for the size of the Site. Data collected
by the Corps through bathymetric monitoring show the spread and
movement of material after placement. The data establish that material
from the Site eventually disperses over the footprint of the site and
with seasonal movement disperses into the littoral system. Monitoring
of the final Site is required in the SMMP and effective monitoring of
the Site is anticipated based on past practice and current ability to
monitor the location and conduct surveillance.
    (5) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where
historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).
    The final Site is located where historic disposal occurred with a
history of minimal impact to the environment, and minimal impact to
other uses and amenities. Locations off the continental shelf in the
Pacific Ocean are generally inhabited by stable benthic and pelagic
ecosystems on steeper gradients that are not well adapted to frequent
disturbance events such as occur with the disposal of dredged material.
Monitoring and surveillance of the final Site do not pose the
challenges inherent in a site located beyond the edge of the
continental shelf. Material disposed beyond the edge of the continental
shelf would not be available to the littoral system.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
    (1) Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and
Distance from Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)).
    Based on the data available, the geographical position, including
the depth of the final Site, bottom topography and distance from the
coastline in the vicinity of the final Site, indicates that designation
of the final Site will not cause adverse effects to the marine
environment. EPA understands that the currents at the final Site and
their influence on the movement of material in the area suggest there
is a high likelihood that much of the material disposed at the Site
will be transported to the littoral sediment circulation system.
Limited onshore transport of material disposed of at the Site is not
expected because of the nature of the prevailing currents and because
wave transport in the vicinity of the Site trends alongshore. Net
predicted material transport at the Site is southward in the summer
months and northward during the remainder of the year. These transport
mechanisms are expected to move material into the active littoral drift
area. This movement is expected to allow for long-term disposal without
creation of adverse mounding conditions.
    (2) Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding,
or Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40
CFR 228.6(a)(2)).
    The final Site is not located in exclusive breeding, spawning,
nursery or feeding areas for adult or juvenile phases of living
resources. Modeling of the water column, which indicates that turbidity
from a disposal event would

be expected to dissipate fairly rapidly, indicates that avoidance
behavior by any species at the final Site would be short-term.
    (3) Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3)).
    The final Site, although located in close proximity to the Rogue
River navigation channel, is located a sufficient distance offshore to
avoid adverse impacts to beaches and other amenity areas.
Transportation of dredges or barges to and from the final Site to
dispose of dredged material is expected to be coordinated so as to
avoid disturbance of other activities near the Rogue River entrance
channel.
    (4) Types and Quantities of Wastes Final to be Disposed of, and
Final Methods of Release, including Methods of Packing the Waste, if
any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)).
    Dredged material characterized by chemical and biological testing
and found suitable for disposal into ocean waters will be the only
material allowed to be disposed of at the final Site. No material
defined as ``waste'' under the MPRSA will be allowed to be disposed of
at the final Site. The dredged material expected to be disposed of at
the Site will be predominantly marine sand, far removed from known
sources of contamination.
    With respect to final methods of releasing material at the final
Site, material will be released just below the surface from dredges
while the dredges are under power and slowly transiting the final Site.
This method of release is expected to spread material at the Site to
minimize mounding and to minimize impacts to the benthic community and
other species in, or near, the Site at the time of a disposal event.
    (5) Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR
228.6(a)(5)).
    Monitoring and surveillance at the final Site are expected to be
feasible and easily performed from small surface research vessels. The
final Site is accessible for bathymetric and side-scan sonar surveys.
At a minimum, annual bathymetric surveys will be conducted at the final
Site to confirm that no unacceptable mounding is taking place within
the Site or its immediate vicinity. Routine monitoring is expected to
concentrate on examining how the distribution of material in the near-
shore portions of the Site augment littoral processes and how
distribution of material in the deeper portions of the Site avoid or
minimize mounding.
    (6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing
Characteristics of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction and
Velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)).
    Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area at and in the vicinity of the final Site are complex. This
complexity is partly a result of rocky reefs to the north of the final
Site which appear to influence mass transport, and in part the
complexity can be attributed to prevailing wave-induced motion and
currents moving towards the north during much of the year. Wave-induced
motion appears to cause near-constant mobilization of bottom sediment.
The overall regional mass transport trend suggests that net littoral
transport of material is to the north from the final Site. That overall
littoral transport appears to be balanced by offshore transport from
the mouth of the Rogue River to the north of the final Site such that
there is shoreline accretion to the north and relative equilibrium of
the shoreline to the south.
    (7) Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and
Dumping in the Area (including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR
228.6(a)(7)).
    The approximate annual loading volume of dredged material placed at
the final Site is expected to equal 54,000 cubic yards (cy) of
material. This average was calculated by averaging seasonal material
placement over disposal seasons from the time the site became a
selected site. Annual monitoring of the Site is required in the final
SMMP for the Site. The final SMMP includes requirements for managing
the Site to address mounding issues if mounding occurs.
    (8) Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral
Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special
Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR
228.6(a)(8)).
    Disposals at the final Site will be managed through the SMMP to
minimize interference with other legitimate uses of the ocean through
careful timing and staggering of disposals in the near-shore and deeper
portions of the final Site.
    (9) The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as
Determined by Available Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Surveys
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).
    EPA did not identify any adverse water quality impacts or adverse
impacts to overall ecology from the historic use of the final Site.
    (10) Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance
Species in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
    Nuisance species, considered as any undesirable organism not
previously existing at a location, have not been observed at, or in the
vicinity of, the final Site. The final SMMP includes specific
biological monitoring requirements, which would act to identify any
nuisance species, and management requirements, which would allow EPA to
direct special studies and/or operational changes to address nuisance
species.
    (11) Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any
Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40
CFR 228.6(a)(11)).
    The final Site is located about two nautical miles south-southeast
of the Rogue Reef complex, an ecologically unique feature among a
system of neritic reefs off the Oregon coast. Dredged material disposed
at the final Site is generally expected to settle to the seafloor
quickly. Naturally occurring littoral transport, which would not be
expected to adversely affect aquatic communities in the reef areas, is
anticipated on a small scale. No significant cultural features were
identified at, or in the vicinity of, the final Site. As discussed
below, EPA coordinated with Oregon's State Historic Preservation
Officer and with Tribes in the vicinity of the final Site to identify
any cultural features. None were identified. No shipwrecks were
observed or documented within the final Site or its immediate vicinity.

e. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act
(MSA); Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA)

(1) NEPA
    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
EPA's NEPA regulations are found at 40 CFR Part 6. NEPA does not apply
to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites because the courts have
exempted EPA's actions under the MPRSA from the procedural requirements
of NEPA through application of the functional equivalence doctrine. EPA
has, by policy, determined that the preparation of non-EIS NEPA
documents for certain EPA regulatory actions, including actions under
the MPRSA, is appropriate. EPA's ``Notice of Policy and Procedures for
Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents,'' (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63
FR 58045,

(October 29, 1998), sets out both the policy and procedures EPA uses
when preparing such environmental review documents. EPA's 2007
revisions to 40 CFR Part 6 provided the framework EPA used to prepare
the voluntary NEPA documents for this final action.
    EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document for designating the final
Site is the Rogue River, Oregon Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Evaluation Study and Environmental Assessment, 2009 (EA), jointly
prepared by EPA and the Corps. The final EA and its Technical
Appendices, are part of the docket for this final action, and provide
the threshold environmental review for the Site designation. The
information from the final EA is used extensively, above, in the
discussion of the ocean dumping criteria.
(2) MSA and MMPA
    In the spring of 2008, EPA initiated consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning essential fish habitat and
protected marine mammals. EPA prepared an essential fish habitat (EFH)
assessment pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as
amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d. NMFS reviewed EPA's EFH
assessment and ESA Biological Assessment for purposes of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to
1389.
    With respect to marine mammals, NMFS found that all potential
adverse effects to ESA-listed marine mammals are discountable or
insignificant. Those findings are documented in Appendix A. Marine
Mammal Determinations of the Biological Opinion issued by NMFS to EPA
on March 19, 2009. With respect to EFH, NMFS found that disposal of
dredge material, an indirect effect of EPA's action to designate the
Rogue River ODMDS, will not alter the habitat value of the designated
EFH at and in the vicinity of the Site. NMFS also concluded that
impacts to forage base would be highly localized and any potential
decrease in forage abundance is considered insignificant to the total
food resources available to EFH management species. Finally, NMFS
concluded that the safe passage of the EFH managed species will not be
functionally changed by EPA's Site designation and the subsequent
disposal of dredged material. Those findings are documented in the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act section of the
NMFS Biological Opinion. NMFS included a ``conservation
recommendation'' to study fish behavior and interactions with disposed
material at the Site. EPA will respond in a separate written response
to NMFS' recommendation.
(3) CZMA
    EPA initiated consultation with the state of Oregon on coastal zone
management issues in summer of 2008. EPA prepared a consistency
determination for the Oregon Ocean and Coastal Management Program
(OCMP) to meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as
amended, (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1465, and submitted that
determination formally to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) in November. DLCD publicly noticed EPA's
consistency determination and took comments on the action until January
2, 2009. DLCD received one comment from the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) expressing support for the designation of the Rogue
River Site and supporting ocean disposal of dredged material as the
best alternative. ODFW also characterized disposal of material in the
littoral zone as a beneficial use. ODFW did express concern with the
relationship of the Site to rocky terrain and with the potential
impacts of uniform disposal.
    DLCD concurred on EPA's determination of consistency with one
condition. The condition calls for the SMMP to assure that monitoring
measures for the Rogue River Site are reasonably likely to identify
significant unanticipated adverse effects on renewable marine
resources, biological diversity of marine life and the functional
integrity of the marine ecosystem at the site, and further asks that
the SMMP include adaptive management measures to avoid significant
impairment of the Site and significant decreases in abundance of
commercial or recreational caught species from direct or indirect
effects on important or essential habitat at the Site. DLCD responded
to the concerns expressed by ODFW by including the condition, above, in
its consistency concurrence. DLCD also recommended that EPA and ODFW
coordinate on issues that might involve adjustments in Site management
to avoid unanticipated adverse effects on important habitat and
renewable marine resources. The final SMMP in this final designation
provides the assurance and adaptive management measures requested.
(4) ESA
    EPA initiated informal consultation in the spring of 2008 with NMFS
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA on EPA's action to designate the Rogue River ODMDS. EPA
prepared a Biological Assessment to assess the potential effects of the
Site designation on aquatic and wildlife species. EPA found that its
action would not be likely to adversely affect (NLAA) aquatic or
wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, or
the critical habitat of such species. EPA found that site designation
does not have a direct impact on any of the identified ESA species but
also found that indirect impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable
future disposal activities had to be considered.
    The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with EPA's
finding that EPA's action to designate the final Rogue River ODMDS
would not likely adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
Consultation with the USFWS for this final action was completed on July
29, 2008.
    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not concur on
EPA's NLAA finding and subsequently prepared a Biological Opinion (BO),
issued March 19, 2009. NMFS concluded that EPA's site designation is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts (SONCC) coho salmon or southern Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) green sturgeon and is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify SONCC coho salmon designated critical habitat or
proposed southern DPS green sturgeon habitat. However, NMFS found that
the indirect effects of the Site designation related to the exposure
fish could experience from the disposal of dredged material could have
consequences for listed fish. Based on NMFS' estimate of ensuing
indirect effects of the Site designation, NMFS estimated that injury
and death of as many as 476 yearling SONCC coho salmon and a smaller
number of small sub-adult southern DPS green sturgeon could occur. For
Steller sea lions, blue whales, fin whales, humpback whales, and
Southern Resident Killer whales, NMFS concurred in the BO with EPA's
determination of ``may affect, not likely to adversely affect.'' For
four species of sea turtles, sperm whales, and sei whales, assessed by
EPA in its determination of NLAA, NMFS found no effect because NMFS did
not anticipate the species would be present in the action area.
    NMFS acknowledged in the BO that EPA's action, the Site
designation, does not authorize and will not itself result in disposal
of dredged material. NMFS stated that it does not anticipate any take
will be caused by the Site designation and adoption of the SMMP.

Consequently, NMFS did not include an incidental take statement in the
BO. Rather, NMFS stated that any further analysis of the effects of
disposal of dredged material at the disposal site and issuance of an
incidental take statement with reasonable and prudent measures and non-
discretionary terms and conditions to minimize take would be prepared
when a disposal permit is requested by the action agency. NMFS did
include one discretionary conservation recommendation in the BO seeking
a study of fish interactions with disposed material. Such
recommendations are purely advisory in nature. While EPA appreciates
that such a study might be beneficial to the scientific knowledge base,
EPA believes that such a study would be most helpful if carried out by
NMFS, the expert Federal agency on fish behavior.
(5) NHPA
    EPA initiated consultation with the State of Oregon's Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) to address the National Historic
Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2. The NHPA
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects,
included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. EPA
determined that no historic properties were affected, or would be
affected, by the final designation of the Site. EPA did not find any
historic properties within the geographic area of the final Site. This
determination was based on an extensive review of the National Register
of Historic Districts in Oregon, the Oregon National Register list and
an assessment of cultural resources near the final Site. Side scan
sonar of the final Site did not reveal the presence of any shipwrecks
or other cultural or historic properties. The SHPO responded to EPA's
determination on September 11, 2008, without objection and clarified on
October 13, 2008 that the Site designation did not require further
archeological investigation to proceed.

f. Action

    EPA designates the Rogue River ODMDS as an EPA-approved dredged
material ocean disposal Site in this action. The monitoring and
management requirements that will apply to this site are described in
the final SMMP. EPA received no comments on the proposed rule other
than one letter, dated November 12, 2008, from the Department of the
Interior (DOI) stating that DOI had no comments. It should be
emphasized that an ocean disposal site designation does not constitute
or imply Corps or EPA approval of open water disposal of dredged
material from any specific project. Before disposal of dredged material
at the site may commence by any person, EPA and the Corps must evaluate
the proposal according to the ocean dumping regulatory criteria (40 CFR
part 227) and authorize disposal. EPA independently evaluates proposed
dumping in accordance with those criteria pursuant to 40 CFR part 225.
EPA has the right to disapprove of the actual disposal of dredged
material if EPA determines that environmental requirements under the
MPRSA have not been met.

3. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule designating the Rogue River ODMDS pursuant to
Section 102 of the MPRSA complies with applicable executive orders and
statutory provisions as follows:

(1) Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. EPA determined that
this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

(2) Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final action does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., because this final rule does not establish or modify any
information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in Title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

(3) Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA determined that this final action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities because the final
rule only has the effect of regulating the location of a site to be
used for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. After
considering the economic impacts of this rule, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

(4) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to
1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local, or
tribal government or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Those
entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements for
the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.

(5) Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government.'' This rule does not have federalism
implications. It does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

(6) Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because the designation of this dredged material
disposal Site will not have a direct effect on 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this final rule, EPA consulted with tribal officials in the development
of this rule, particularly as it relates to potential impacts to
historic or cultural resources.

(7) Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885) as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to
influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045
because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks. The final action concerns the
designation of an ocean disposal Site for dredged material and provides
a designated location to use for ocean disposal of dredged material
pursuant to section 102 (c) of the MPRSA.

(8) Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355) because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

(9) National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The final action includes
environmental monitoring and measurement as described in EPA's final
SMMP. EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic
methods for monitoring and managing the final Site once designated. The
Agency will allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and
measurement criteria discussed in the final SMMP.

(10) Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. EPA determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. EPA assessed the overall protectiveness of designating the
final disposal Site against the criteria established pursuant to the
MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact on the environment will be
mitigated to the greatest extent practicable.

(11) Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective thirty days from the date of
publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of Section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: April 3, 2009.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

PART 228--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. Sections 1412 and 1418

0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraph (n)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (6) Rogue River, OR--Dredged Material Site
    (i) Location: 42[deg] 24'15.40'' N, 124[deg] 26'52.39'' W; 42[deg]
24'03.40'' N, 124[deg] 26'39.39'' W; 42[deg] 23'39.40'' N, 124[deg]
27'17.40'' W; 42[deg] 23'51.40'' N, 124[deg] 27'30.40'' W (NAD 83)
    (ii) Size: Approximately 1.1 kilometers long and 0.4 kilometers
wide
    (iii) Depth: Ranges from approximately 15 to 27 meters
    (iv) Primary Use: Dredged material
    (v) Period of Use: Continuing Use
    (vi) Restrictions: (A) Disposal shall be limited to dredged
material determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40
CFR 227.13, from the Rogue River navigation channel and adjacent areas;
    (B) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
    (C) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-8660 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P