States 5,371
5,295
0 10,666
EPA 11,440
5,720
0
17,160
Total with EPA
35,429
11,015
0
46,443
Total without EPA 23,989
5,295
0 29,284
1.  See Exhibit 8a for further PWS cost estimation details.
2. Although EPA is not considered a respondent to the UCMR regulations, Agency burdens are shown
here to illustrate the national costs of the program. National totals are shown with and without the Agency
costs.
6(e)
Reasons for Change in Burden
The renewal of this ICR will result in an overall decrease of 91,875 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR. The reasons that
respondents to UCMR 2 will incur a different burden during this second ICR period of 2010-
2012, than respondents incurred during the first UCMR 2 ICR period of 2007-2009 include:

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
41
•
Fewer PWSs participating during this ICR period: UCMR 2 monitoring takes place from
2008-2010, with approximately 1/3 of systems participating in each of those three years.
Thus, during the first ICR period of 2007-2009, approximately 2/3 of participating
systems (~ 3,275 systems) completed their required monitoring, and during the second
ICR period of 2010-2012, the remaining 1/3 (~ 1,638 systems) will complete their
required monitoring. See Section 6(a)(i) Estimating Burden and Labor Costs for detailed
explanations.
•
Schedule of activities for PWSs different during this ICR period: Some initial activities
were assumed to be conducted by all systems during 2007 (or prior to monitoring),
including reading regulations, and reporting prior to monitoring (contact and sampling
location information, and representative EPTDS proposals). Thus, there are some PWS
activities that took place during the first UCMR 2 ICR period of 2007-2009, that will not
take place during the second ICR period of 2010-2012. See Section 4(b)(ii)(a) Public
Water System Activities for detailed explanations.
•
Schedule of activities also different for participating States and EPA: Management and
support activities for States and EPA also vary with the UCMR 2 monitoring schedule.
Thus, both States and EPA are expected to have different burdens during this second
UCMR 2 ICR period of 2010-2012. See Section 4(b)(ii)(b) State Activities and Section
5(a) Agency Activities for details.
6(f) Burden Statement
With respect to per system burden estimates, EPA notes that all burden estimates
represent average burden hours, which include surface water systems that may have very few
sampling points, and thus lower sampling burden, as well as those systems with higher numbers
of sampling points that would therefore have greater sampling activity labor burden. Moreover, a
system’s burden is primarily incurred during its one year of required UCMR monitoring
(between January 2008 and December 2010). In compliance with the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), these cost and burden estimates are presented
as an average over the applicable three-year ICR period (2010-2012). Small systems (those
serving 10,000 or fewer people) have the lowest burden not only because of the relative smaller
size of their infrastructure, but also because these systems will receive a great deal of direct
assistance from EPA and/or their State.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
42
Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) that are selected for UCMR 2 monitoring
will sample an average of 2.7 times per system (i.e., number of responses per system) across the
three-year ICR period of 2010-2012. The average total burden per response for small systems is
estimated to be 1.8 hours. Large systems (those serving 10,001 to 100,000) and very large
systems (those serving more than 100,000) will sample and report an average of 3.1 and 3.6
times per system, respectively, across the three-year ICR period of 2010-2012. The average total
burdens per response for large and very large systems are estimated to be 3.8 and 8.7 hours,
respectively. The larger burden per response for the very large systems reflects the fact that these
systems typically have more sampling locations than large systems. States are assumed to incur 2
responses over the three-year ICR period related to coordination with EPA and systems, with an
average burden per response of 95.2 hours. In aggregate, during the ICR period of 2010-2012,
the average response (e.g., responses from systems and States) is associated with a total burden
of 5.8 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $1,939 per response.
The annual average per respondent burden hours and costs for the ICR period of 2010-
2012 are: small systems — 1.6 hour burden at $44 for labor; large systems — 3.8 hours at $114
for labor, and $1,747 for analytical costs; very large systems — 10.4 hours at $369 for labor, and
$7,260 for analytical costs; and States — 63.5 hours at $3,499 for labor. Annual average burden
and cost per respondent (including both systems and States) is estimated to be 5.8 hours, with a
labor plus non-labor cost of $1,919 per respondent (note that small systems do not pay for testing
costs, so they only incur labor costs). The total annual burden for the ICR reporting period of
2010-2012 is 9,761 (with a labor cost of $387,096); the total annual analytical cost is $2.86
million.
The Agency estimates the annual burden to EPA for UCMR program activities during the
ICR years of 2010-2012 to be 5,720 hours, at an annual labor cost of $0.4 million. EPA’s annual
non-labor costs are estimated to be $1.1 million. Non-labor costs are primarily attributed to the
cost of sample testing for small systems (testing is just under 90 percent of non-labor).
Exhibit 13 presents per respondent and per response burdens and costs over the UCMR
ICR period of 2010-2012 (analogous information for the 2007-2011 UCMR 2 implementation
period is provided in Exhibit B-5, Appendix B). This exhibit also presents average annual
burdens and costs.
Exhibit 13: UCMR 2 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period
(2010-2012)
(corresponds with Exhibit B-5)
Burden (hours)/
Cost (dollars)
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very Large
Systems
States EPA
National
Average
with EPA
1
National
Average
without
EPA
Three-Year Total per Respondent
Total # of
Responses Per
Respondent
2.7 3.1
3.6
2.0
n/a
n/a
3.0

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
43
Exhibit 13: UCMR 2 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period
(2010-2012)
(corresponds with Exhibit B-5)
Burden (hours)/
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very Large
Systems
States EPA
National
Average
with EPA
1
National
Average
without
EPA
Cost (dollars)
Labor Cost Per
Respondent
$132
$341
$1,108
$10,496
$1,191,934
$1,389
$686
Non-Labor Cost
Per Respondent
$0
$5,241
$21,780
$0
$3,239,565
$6,981
$5,072
Total Cost
(Labor plus
Non-Labor)
$132
$5,582
$22,887
$10,496
$4,431,498
$8,369
$5,758
Total Cost Per
Response
$50 $1,822
$6,363
$5,248
n/a
n/a $1,939
Total Burden
Per Respondent
(hours)
4.7 11.5
31.1
190.5
17,160.0
27.4 17.3
Total Burden
Per Response
(hours)
1.8 3.8
8.7
95.2
n/a
n/a 5.8
Average Annual per Respondent
Ave. # of
Responses Per
Respondent
0.9 1.0
1.2
0.7
n/a
n/a 1.0
Labor Cost Per
Respondent
$44
$114
$369
$3,499
$397,311
$463
$229
Non-Labor Cost
Per Respondent
$0 $1,747
$7,260
$0
$1,079,855
$2,327
$1,691
Ave. Cost
(Labor plus
Non-Labor)
$44
$1,861
$7,629
$3,499
$1,477,166
$2,790
$1,919
Ave. Cost Per
Response
$17 $607
$2,121
$1,749
n/a
n/a $646
Ave. Burden Per
Respondent
(hours)
1.6 3.8
10.4
63.5
5,720.0
9.1 5.8
Ave. Burden Per


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6610-6613]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0013]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa Bay, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone that is
concurrent with the Army Corps of Engineers restricted area adjacent to
MacDill Air Force Base. The security zone is necessary to facilitate
security operations conducted at the Air Force Base. All persons,
vessels, or other craft are prohibited from anchoring, mooring,
drifting, or transiting within this zone, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

DATES: This interim rule is effective February 5, 2008. Comments and
related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before
April 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0013 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) 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.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL (813)
228-2191, Ext 8307. 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. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0013), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have

questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to
resubmit your comment if we are not able to read your original
submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic
means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material
by only one means. If you submit them by mail or 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 them 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. We may change this rule in
view of them.

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 at

any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this rulemaking (USCG-USCG-2008-0013) in the Docket ID box, and
click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility 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., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov
.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one 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.

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) for this
rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing an NPRM. It is unnecessary because the
purpose of this rule is to reinforce and support an already existing
exclusionary area that was previously designated with prohibitions
against both person and vessel movements. There are no new restrictions
being proposed.
    For the same reasons above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    This area is already a designated an exclusionary zone. Under 33
CFR 334.635, the Army Corps of Engineers established a restricted area
adjacent to MacDill Air Force Base. The Coast Guard is establishing a
security zone that is concurrent with this restricted area to assist in
enforcing the prohibition against all persons, vessels, and other craft
that may enter, transit, anchor, or drift into this prohibited area.
MacDill Air Force base routinely conducts operations and contains
infrastructure critical to national security. This security zone is
necessary to protect those operations and infrastructure as well as to
prevent subversive activities. To more appropriately address the
security risks associated with MacDill Air Force Base, as well as to
enable agencies to work from a common operating picture and to maximize
the synergy of enforcement resources, the Coast Guard is establishing
this security zone.
    Using the newly developed Maritime Security Risk Analysis tool, a
working group comprised of security analysts from local law enforcement
agencies, MacDill Operations, industrial partners, and the Coast Guard
evaluated the risk to the maritime transportation system (MTS) within
Tampa Bay. The results of the risk assessment indicated the need to
revisit whether the existing security zones sufficiently provided
adequate coverage for implementing counter-surveillance, intrusion
detection, and response measures for the port community. This holistic
approach determined that additional mechanisms were necessary to
address MacDill Air Force Base security risks as well as help mitigate
common risk factors across the entire bay. The resulting proposal
consists of the existing exclusionary area defined by the Army Corps of
Engineers and the establishment of a Coast Guard security zone that
coincides with that exclusionary area.

Discussion of Rule

    The security zone coincides with the Army Corps of Engineers
restricted area adjacent to MacDill Air Force Base and includes
portions of the waters of Hillsborough Bay, Old Tampa Bay, and Tampa
Bay. This area is marked as a prohibited area on navigation charts and
is bounded by the following coordinates: latitude 27[deg]51'52.901''
N., longitude 82[deg]29'18.329'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]52'00.672'' N., longitude 82[deg]28'51.196'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]51'28.859'' N., longitude 82[deg]28'10.412'' W.,
thence directly to latitude 27[deg]51'01.067'' N., longitude
2[deg]27'45.355'' W., thence directly to latitude 27[deg]50'43.248''
N., longitude 82[deg]27'36.491'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]50'19.817'' N., longitude 82[deg]27'35.466'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]49'38.865'' N., longitude 82[deg]27'43.642'' W.,
thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'20.204'' N., longitude
82[deg]27'47.517'' W., thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'06.112''
N., longitude 82[deg]27'52.750'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]48'52.791'' N., longitude 82[deg]28'05.943'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]48'45.406'' N., longitude 82[deg]28'32.309'' W.,
thence directly to latitude 27[deg]48'52.162'' N., longitude
82[deg]29'26.672'' W., thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'03.600''
N., longitude 82[deg]30'23.629'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]48'44.820'' N., longitude 82[deg]31'10.000'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]49'09.350'' N., longitude 82[deg]32'24.556'' W.,
thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'38.620'' N., longitude
82[deg]33'02.444'' W., thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'56.963''
N., longitude 82[deg]32'45.023'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]50'05.447'' N., longitude 82[deg]32'48.734'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]50'33.715'' N., longitude 82[deg]32'45.220'' W.,
thence directly to a point on the western shore of the base at latitude
27[deg]50'42.836'' N., longitude 82[deg]32'10.972'' W.
    All persons, vessels, or other craft are prohibited from anchoring,
mooring, drifting, or transiting within this security zone under Sec.
165.768, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or
a designated representative. Also, Sec.  334.635 requires that
permission from the Commander of the MacDill Air Force Base, Florida,
would need to be obtained before entering the Army Corps of Engineers
restricted area which covers the same waters.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and

Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This area has already been
designated as an exclusionary zone. The impact on routine navigation is
expected to be minimal since the geographic boundaries of this security
zone are the same as the Army Corps of Engineers restricted area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule should not impact any entities due to the
restricted nature of the waters surrounding MacDill Air Force Base.
This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities since vessel traffic in this area
is already prohibited.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Comments submitted in response to this
finding will be evaluated under the criteria in the ``Regulatory
Information'' section of this preamble.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Questions
may be directed to the person identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. This rule seeks to establish a security zone. A final
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' are available in the

docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text

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

PART 165--SAFETY ZONES AND SECURITY ZONES

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

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

0
2. A new Sec.  165.768 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.768  Security Zone; MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa Bay, FL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone which exists
concurrent with an Army Corps of Engineers restricted area in Sec.
334.635 of this title. All waters within Tampa Bay, Florida in the
vicinity of MacDill Air Force Base, including portions of the waters of
Hillsborough Bay, Old Tampa Bay, and Tampa Bay, encompassed by a line
connecting the following coordinates: latitude 27[deg]51'52.901'' N.,
longitude 82[deg]29'18.329'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]52'00.672'' N., longitude 82[deg]28'51.196'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]51'28.859'' N., longitude 82[deg]28'10.412'' W.,
thence directly to latitude 27[deg]51'01.067'' N., longitude
2[deg]27'45.355'' W., thence directly to latitude 27[deg]50'43.248''
N., longitude 82[deg]27'36.491'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]50'19.817'' N., longitude 82[deg]27'35.466'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]49'38.865'' N., longitude 82[deg]27'43.642'' W.,
thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'20.204'' N., longitude
82[deg]27'47.517'' W., thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'06.112''
N., longitude 82[deg]27'52.750'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]48'52.791'' N., longitude 82[deg]28'05.943'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]48'45.406'' N., longitude 82[deg]28'32.309'' W.,
thence directly to latitude 27[deg]48'52.162'' N., longitude
82[deg]29'26.672'' W., thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'03.600''
N., longitude 82[deg]30'23.629'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]48'44.820'' N., longitude 82[deg]31'10.000'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]49'09.350'' N., longitude 82[deg]32'24.556'' W.,
thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'38.620'' N., longitude
82[deg]33'02.444'' W., thence directly to latitude 27[deg]49'56.963''
N., longitude 82[deg]32'45.023'' W., thence directly to latitude
27[deg]50'05.447'' N., longitude 82[deg]32'48.734'' W., thence directly
to latitude 27[deg]50'33.715'' N., longitude 82[deg]32'45.220'' W.,
thence directly to a point on the western shore of the base at latitude
27[deg]50'42.836'' N., longitude 82[deg]32'10.972'' W.
    (b) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section.
Designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including
Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating
Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated
by or assisting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg (COTP), in the
enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security
zones.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.33 of this part, entry into, anchoring, mooring, or
transiting this zone by persons or vessels is prohibited without the
prior permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port St. Petersburg
or a designated representative.

    Dated: January 16, 2008.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. E8-1765 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 37546]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13396]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for the Huntsville
International Airport Reentry Site Operator License and Sierra Space
Corporation Vehicle Operator License

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA
implementing regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, the FAA is announcing the availability of the
Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/
Record of Decision for the Huntsville International Airport Reentry
Site Operator License and Sierra Space Corporation Vehicle Operator
License (Final EA and FONSI/ROD).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Hanson, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is the lead agency responsible for
completing the EA. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) are cooperating agencies for the EA
for the Huntsville International Airport Reentry Site Operator License
and Sierra Space Corporation Vehicle Operator License due to their
special expertise and jurisdictions. The FAA evaluated (1) the
Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority's (Authority) proposal to
operate a commercial reentry site at Huntsville International Airport,
which would require the FAA to issue a Reentry Site Operator License,
and (2) Sierra Space Corporation's (Sierra Space) proposal to land the
Dream Chaser at Huntsville International Airport, which would require
the FAA to issue a Vehicle Operator License. Issuing a Reentry Site
Operator License and Vehicle Operator License are considered Federal
actions subject to environmental review under NEPA. Under the Proposed
Action, the FAA would issue a Reentry Site Operator License to the
Authority and a Vehicle Operator License to Sierra Space to land the
Dream Chaser at Huntsville International Airport.
    The Final EA evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the
Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action
Alternative, the FAA would not issue a Reentry Site Operator License to
the Authority, nor would the FAA issue a Vehicle Operator License to
Sierra Space for landing the Dream Chaser at Huntsville International
Airport. Sierra Space's Dream Chaser reentry operations would not occur
at Huntsville International Airport and Huntsville International
Airport would not offer its site for commercial space reentries.
    The FAA published a Draft EA for public review and comment on
November 12, 2021 through December 22, 2021. The FAA received 40 public
comments on the Draft EA. The FAA posted the Final EA and FONSI/ROD on
the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation website on May 12,
2022, linked here: https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/huntsville_reentry/.
    The FAA's ROD contains the agency's decision to approve the
Proposed Action, and includes numerous finding and determinations
pursuant to Executive Orders and special purpose laws, including the
Department of Transportation Act, the National Historic Preservation
Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species
Act.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on: June 15, 2022.
Stacey Molinich Zee,
Manager, Operations Support Branch, Office of Commercial Space
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2022-13396 Filed 6-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 28233]
[DOCID:fr15jn09-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP09-756-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Filing of Temporary
Waiver Request

June 8, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 5, 2009, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Rules
of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
18 CFR 385.207(a)(5) (2008), Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas
Eastern) filed a petition for temporary waivers of the Applicable
Shrinkage Adjustment (ASA) fuel percentage and section 15.2(C) of the
General Terms and Conditions (GT&C) of its FERC Gas Tariff related to
service provided on Texas Eastern's Main Pass offshore system during a
planned maintenance outage on that system next month. Texas Eastern
requests any additional waivers of Texas Eastern's FERC Gas Tariff and
the Commission's regulations that are necessary for Texas Eastern to
implement the proposal described therein.
    Texas Eastern states that these waivers are necessary to maximize
the ability of producers connected to a 25-mile portion of its Main
Pass offshore system located upstream of the proposed work area to
continue to maintain production during the outage period. Texas Eastern
states that the temporary waivers requested herein would be effective
for a period of approximately one month during July and August this
summer while Texas Eastern performs the required maintenance work.
    Texas Eastern respectfully requests that the Commission expedite
action on this Petition and grant the waiver requested herein by June
19, 2009. In light of this request for expedited action, Texas Eastern
requests that the Commission shorten the notice period to one week from
the date of this filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment due date.
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 12, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13959 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38005-38006]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15550]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0428]

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Biloxi Bay
Fireworks; Biloxi Bay; Biloxi, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a Safety Zone for the Biloxi Bay
Fireworks event in Biloxi Bay, Biloxi, MS from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m.
on July 4, 2012. This action is necessary to safeguard participants and
spectators, including all crews, vessels, and persons on navigable
waters during the Biloxi Bay Fireworks. During the enforcement period,
entry into, transiting or anchoring in the Safety Zone is prohibited to
all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official
patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port (COTP) Mobile or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Table No. 148 will
be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email LT Lenell J. Carson, Coast Guard Sector
Mobile, Waterways Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone
for the annual Biloxi Bay Fireworks event listed in 33 CFR 165.801
Table 1, Table No. 148; Sector Mobile No. 7, on July 4, 2012, from 8:30
p.m. until 10 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone
listed in Table 1, Table No. 148, is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Persons or
vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the Safety Zone must
request permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated
representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 33 U.S.C.
1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to
this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period
via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Mobile or Patrol Commander determines
that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated
in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
D.J. Rose,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2012-15550 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P