Testimony

of

Alison Keane, Counsel Government Affairs

National Paint and Coating Association

on

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Areas Source
Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing

Public Hearing

Environmental Protection Agency – Research Triangle Park

July 16, 2009

Paint and Allied Products Area Source Category is Erroneous

On November 22, 2002 EPA promulgated revisions to its area source
category list under the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.  The
notice added 23 new area source categories to the list of industries to
be regulated by air toxic standards, including the nine area source
categories included in the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source Category
(there are approximately 71 source categories listed total).  Even
though EPA states in the first paragraph of the notice that “[t]he
Strategy’s area source category list constitutes an important part of
EPA’s agenda for regulating stationary sources of air [toxics]
emissions” (emphasis added), stakeholders were not afforded the
opportunity to comment on the area source category list.  Instead, EPA
stated “These revisions to the list of area sources have not been
reflected in any previous notices and are being made without public
comment on the Administrator’s own motion.  Such revisions are deemed
by EPA to be without need for public comment based on the nature of the
actions.” (emphasis added)  NPCA believes the “nature of the
actions” – listing the area sources to be regulated, was just as EPA
stated – an important part of its regulatory framework and thus,
should have provided those impacted with an opportunity for comment.

Coatings Industry has significantly Reduced HAP Emissions Since 1990

Had we been provide with the opportunity for notice and comments, we
strongly believe that the paints and allied product category would have
been eliminated from the list given the significant HAP reductions the
industry has made since the listing, which used 1990 data.  Information
supplied from EPA’s Sector Strategies Program clearly shows that of
the listed HAP of concern, benzene and cadmium are no longer used in our
industry and there has been a significant decrease in use of methylene
chloride, lead, chromium and nickel. In fact, based on 2003 data, EPA
has documented the following:

Urban Air Toxics – 81% reduction since 1990

Total Air Toxics (including HAPs) – 61% reduction since 1990

Metal Air Toxics – 90% since 1990

Benzene – no facility reported emissions since 1998

Methylene Chloride – 80% reductions since 1990

Lead – 90% reduction since 1990

Cadmium – no facility emissions since 1991

Chromium – 90% reduction since 1990

Nickel – 90% reduction since 1990

And these numbers are based on 2003 data – given that the MACT rule
for paints and coatings and the numerous MACT and Area Source rules for
paints and coatings as well as surface coating operations have been
promulgated or implemented only in the last 5 years, we would expect the
reductions to be even higher and the use of these target HAPs and HAPs
in general to be even lower.  While we understand that since the
category was listed, even if erroneously, that EPA must promulgate the
rulemaking, we do expect EPA to reduce the costs and burden on industry
as much as possible given the fact that the final rule will ultimately
have little to no environmental benefit commensurate with its costs.
Thus, EPA must include provisions in the final rule that exempt certain
facilities and provide pollution prevention and burden reduction options
for others.

Exemption for De Minimis Volumes Must be Provided

NPCA supports the proposed rule’s applicability section in that unless
a facility is using one of the target HAP, it is not subject to the
regulation.  However, NPCA requests that a de minimus threshold also be
included in the final rule that would exempt a facility that uses less
than a certain amount of the target HAP.  This is important given the
fact that the majority of the target HAP in this case are metals, which
may be found in trace amounts or as contaminants in many raw materials
and may or may not be known to the manufacturer.   There is precedence
for de minimus thresholds in several earlier NESHAP rulemakings,
including the MACT standards for miscellaneous surface coatings of metal
and plastic parts and the Area Source standards for paint stripping,
among others.  In these rules, EPA determined that the use of coatings
containing urban air toxics below certain thresholds do not negatively
impact human health and the environment.  Thus, NPCA requests that a de
minimis level be added to the Area Source rule for Paint and Allied
Products manufacturing, and will suggest an appropriate threshold in our
comment document.

Limit the Rule’s Applicability to the Target HAP

Again, NPCA supports the fact that EPA has proposed to limit the initial
applicability of the rulemaking to only those paint manufacturing
operations that process, use, produce or generate any of the target HAP.
 However, once a facility is subject to the rulemaking based on the use
of one or more target HAP, the Proposed Rule then arbitrarily expands
the applicability to all organic HAP emissions and all metal HAP
emissions.  The intent of the area source regulations was to regulate
the 30 Urban Air toxics.  Thus, by expanding the rule beyond the target
HAP, EPA is significantly increasing the burden on industry –
especially small business – again, without commensurate environmental
benefit.  EPA states that there is little if any additional cost for
implementing controls across all emission sources, however, NPCA
believes EPA’s costs estimates are in error.  While EPA may have the
legal authority to expand the scope of this rulemaking – given the
fact that the paint and allied products category listing is suspect in
and of itself and that the industry has made significant reductions in
the use of the target HAPs as well as emissions of all HAP, we believe
it unnecessary and overly burdensome for EPA to expand the rule’s
applicability in this manner.

Limit the Rule’s Applicability to Operations that Involve HAPs

For the same reasons, NPCA requests that EPA limit the rulemaking’s
applicability to those operations at a facility that are actually
utilizing one of the target HAP.  EPA should revise the applicability
language to make it clear that the rule only applies to processes with
target HAP emissions at an affected source, as opposed to any operation
at an affected source, regardless of whether or not the process involves
HAP.

Exemption for Paste/Slurry Form

Another exemption that would reduce the costs and burden associated with
this rulemaking without environmental harm would be to exempt facilities
and/or processes that only use the target HAP in paste or slurry form.
EPA correctly concluded in the Proposed Rule that after the addition
processes, pigments and associated metal HAP are in solution and metal
HAP emissions are minimal. Further, metal particulate emissions from
pigments that are in the form of a past or slurry are also minimal.
Since there are minimal particulate emissions from the use of pigments
and slurries, NPCA requests that that EPA exempt facilities and
processes using pastes and slurries from the applicability of this rule.

Exemption for Architectural Coatings

EPA solicited comment on potential subcategories for this source
category. NPCA believes that there are certain portions of the coatings
industry that do not use benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of
cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel. Specifically, NPCA does not believe
that facilities that are exclusively manufacturing architectural house
paints utilize any of these target HAP.  This is not only because of
reformulation and process changes as discussed previously, but because
of the many consumer oriented regulations governing these products,
including but not limited to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
of 2008 that lowered lead levels in consumer paints, Green Seal and
other building standards that limit or prohibit the use of methylene
chloride, benzene, cadmium, lead and chromium, and the toxics in
packaging legislation through the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
that has been adopted in 19 states and limits the concentration of lead,
cadmium and chromium.  Thus, NPCA requests that architectural paint
manufacturing facilities be exempted from the applicability of the rule.

EPA Should Allow Facilities to “Opt-Out”

In addition to these exemptions and clarifications to the applicability
section, NPCA requests that EPA include a pollution prevention
alternative that would exempt a facility from the rule’s requirements
if a facility eliminates all use of the target HAPs.  In other words, a
facility subject to this rule could “opt out” of the rule in the
future if the facility eliminated the processing, use, production or
generation of the HAPs of concern.  If EPA does not include an opt-out
provision, there is no incentive for coatings manufacturers or their raw
material suppliers to move away from these HAPs.  And facilities that do
reformulate or cease producing a certain product that subjected them to
the rulemaking in the first place will be mandated to continue to
operate costly and energy consuming control equipment (e.g., particulate
controls) for no environmental benefit.  In fact, the operation of this
equipment in the absence of HAP may result in environmental harm –
with the consumption of more electricity and natural gas, the generation
of more greenhouse gases, and the increased potential of landfill
disposal of removed particulate material.  Just the cost and burden of
the continue recordkeeping and reporting the facility would still be
subject to despite using no target HAP should be amble reason to provide
this pollution prevention alternative.  NPCA believes that EPA’s 1995
“one in/always in” policy applies to major sources subject to MACT
standards and would not apply to this Area Source regulation, and while
EPA staff has unofficially indicated they support this view, NPCA
requests that EPA officially confirm that this policy does not apply to
this final rulemaking and facilities who no longer use the target HAP
after the date of implementation have the ability to opt-out of the
rule.

Implementation Date Should be Three Years

Lastly, NPCA requests that currently proposed implementation deadline be
increased from 2 years to 3 years.  NPCA believes that the proposed 2
year implementation period is arbitrary and capricious, since nearly
every MACT and Area Source NESHAP published prior to this rule has a 3
year implementation period. Further, EPA notes that some facilities may
be subject to EPA rules for the first time and most of the facilities
subject to this rule are small businesses with 50 percent of these
having less than 10 employees. This is compounded by the fact that this
rule has an unusually short comment period and must be finalized in an
expedited manner – such that many small paint manufacturers may not
even be aware of the rulemaking and extra effort will be necessary to
alert them to the final rule.  Further, small businesses need ample time
to secure funding and engineering resources in order to install
particulate controls and tank covers/lids and EPA must produce
compliance assistance and outreach tools.  Lastly, a 3 year
implementation period would give paint manufacturing facilities another
12 months to eliminate benzene, methylene chloride, cadmium, chromium,
lead and nickel from their coatings formulations. NPCA believes EPA
would favor pollution prevention reformulations as opposed to burdensome
regulations.  Thus, NPCA requests a 3 year implementation deadline.

 67 Fed. Reg. 70427 (November 22, 2002).  See 64 Fed. Reg. 38706 (July
19, 1999) for Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.

 Air Emissions from the Paint and Coatings Sector, EPA Sector Strategies
Division  (December 2006).

 40 CFR §63.4481(b) and 40 CFR §63.3881(c)(3), respectively.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 61 (Friday, March 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16084-16086]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06334]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80316; File No. SR-ISE-2017-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Delay the Implementation of Functionality Associated With
Stock-Option Orders

March 27, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 21, 2017, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
ISE filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of functionality
associated with Stock-Option Orders \5\ in connection with a system
migration to Nasdaq INET technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A stock-option order is an order to buy or sell a stated
number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible
into the underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s) on the opposite side of
the market representing either (A) the same number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of units
of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral
position, but in no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one
(8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security in the option leg to the
total number of units of the underlying stock or convertible
security in the stock leg. See ISE Rule 722(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Today, ISE accepts complex orders, including Stock-Option Orders
that contain a stock component. Today, complex orders, including Stock-
Option Orders, are permitted to: (1) Leg into the regular market where
they may trade against bids and offers for the individual legs pursuant
to Rule 722(b)(3)(ii) and (iii) (``legging''); \6\ or (2) execute
against another order within the complex order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 722 also contains
provisions relevant to the legging of Stock-Option Orders
specifically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of legging
functionality for Stock-Option Orders in connection with a migration to
the INET platform. INET is the proprietary core technology utilized
across Nasdaq's global markets and utilized on The NASDAQ Options
Market LLC (``NOM''), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') and NASDAQ BX, Inc.
(``BX'') (collectively, ``Nasdaq Exchanges''). The migration of ISE to
the Nasdaq INET architecture would result in higher performance,
scalability, and more robust architecture. With this system migration,
the Exchange intends to adopt certain trading functionality currently
utilized at Nasdaq Exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80075 (February 21,
2017), 82 FR 11975 (February 27, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-02) (Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Various Rules in Connection
with a System Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange desires to delay the implementation of the legging
functionality for Stock-Option Orders on INET at this time and rollout
this functionality within one year of the date of the filing of this
proposal. The Exchange is staging the re-platform to provide maximum
benefit to its Members while also ensuring a successful rollout. This
delay in implementing the legging functionality for Stock-Option Orders
will provide the Exchange additional time to test and implement this
functionality on the INET platform.

    The Exchange filed a proposal to begin a system migration to Nasdaq
INET in Q2 of 2017.\8\ The migration will be on a symbol by symbol
basis as specified by the Exchange in a notice to Members.\9\ The
Exchange is proposing to implement this rule change on the INET
platform as the symbols migrate to that platform. The legging
functionality for Stock-Option Orders will be available until the
symbol migrates to the INET platform. Once the symbol migrates to INET
the legging functionality for Stock-Option Orders will not be
available. However, Stock-Option Orders will continue to be executed
against other Stock-Option Orders in the complex order book. The
Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert to all Members notifying
them that legging functionality for Stock-Option Orders will no longer
be available with the symbol migration to INET. The Exchange proposes
to launch the legging functionality on the INET platform within one
year from the date of filing of this rule change to be announced in an
Options Trader Alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. This proposal is not approved.
    \9\ The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert prior to the
migration and will specify the dates that symbols will migrate to
the INET platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest because the Exchange desires to rollout the legging
functionality for Stock-Option Orders at a later date to allow
additional time to rebuild this technology on the new platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By delaying the implementation of functionality with the symbol
migration to INET, the Exchange will have additional time to test and
implement this functionality. The Exchange will provide Members with
ample notice of the turn-off of this functionality and note within that
notice that Stock-Option Orders will continue to be executed against
other Stock-Option Orders. The Exchange will continue to provide
notifications to Members to ensure clarity about the availability of
this functionality with the symbol migration. The Exchange will issue
an Options Trader Alert indicating when the legging functionality will
become available on the INET platform.
    The Exchange does not anticipate any significant impact with
respect to execution quality. The priority rules will continue to apply
with respect to these Stock-Option Orders respecting Priority Customer
Orders.\12\ The Exchange notes that Phlx does not offer legging
functionality for Stock-Option Orders.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ISE Rule 722(b)(2).
    \13\ See Phlx Rule 1098.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impact the intense competition that
exists in the options market. Members will be able to continue to
execute complex orders on ISE, except that Stock-Option Orders will
only be permitted to trade with other Stock-Option Orders in the
complex order book as the symbol migrates to INET. The Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intra-market competition because all Members uniformly will only be
permitted to trade with other Stock-Option Orders in the complex order
book as the symbol migrates to INET.
    The Exchange proposes to launch the legging functionality on the
INET platform within one year from the date of filing of this rule
change to be announced in an Options Trader Alert.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2017-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-28. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the

filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE-2017-28 and should be submitted on or before April
21, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06334 Filed 3-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15357-15358]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06113]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9958-90-Region 3]

EPA-Mid-Atlantic Region III; Maryland Marine Sanitation Device
Standard--Receipt of Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice--Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a petition has been received from
the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources on behalf
of the State of Maryland requesting a determination by the Regional
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mid-Atlantic
Region, that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and
treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the
Chester River, Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, Maryland. EPA is
requesting comments on this petition and whether EPA should designate
the Chester River and its tributaries as a No Discharge Zone as
provided in the Clean Water Act. The petition is available upon request
from EPA (at the email address below) or at http://dnr.maryland.gov/boating/Documents/FINAL_CRA_NDZ_APPLICATION.pdf.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing to EPA on or before April
27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Michael D. Hoffmann, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency--Mid-Atlantic Region, 1650 Arch Street,
Mail Code 3WP10, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, or emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Only written comment will be considered.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Hoffmann, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency--Mid-Atlantic Region. Telephone: (215)
814-2716, Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that a petition has
been received from the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources on behalf of the State of Maryland requesting a determination
by the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mid-Atlantic Region pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322(f)(3), that adequate facilities for the safe and
sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels is reasonably
available for the entirety of the Chester River and its tributaries.
EPA is requesting comments on this petition and whether EPA should
designate the Chester River as a No Discharge Zone as provided in that
provision of the Clean Water Act. The petition is available upon
request from EPA (at the address above) or at http://dnr.maryland.gov/boating/Documents/FINAL_CRA_NDZ_APPLICATION.pdf.
    The State of Maryland makes this request as part of its application
for a No Discharge Zone which will prohibit the discharge of sewage
from vessels into the Chester River and its tributaries. The
delineation of the proposed No Discharge Zone of the Chester River and
its tributaries from the Chesapeake Bay will begin at 39[deg]8'54.48''
N., 76[deg]16'37.11'' W. and extend down to 39[deg]2'23.56'' N.,
76[deg]18'8.89'' W. From there it will continue east throughout any
navigable waters including all tributaries and bays. Included within
this zone are Lankford Bay, Corsica River, Southeast Creek, and many
smaller tributaries.
    The State of Maryland has certified that there are nineteen
stationary and four mobile pumpout stations located at 17 marinas or
docks throughout the Chester River. Sixteen of the nineteen stationary
units also have a method to empty portable toilets. All of the pump-out
stations noted were funded with grants administered by the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources and all comply with local and state
sanitary permitting requirements. A list of the facilities, phone
numbers, locations, and hours of operation can be found below.

                                           List of Facilities With Pumpouts in the Proposed No Discharge Zone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Mean low
        Pumpout facility          Operating hours in season  water depth     Phone No.                                Address
                                                                 (ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayside Landing Park...........  24-7......................            5<PHONE_NUMBER>  20927 Bayside Avenue, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Castle Harbor Marina...........  24-7......................            6<PHONE_NUMBER>  301 Tackle Cir, Chester, MD 21619.
Chestertown Marina.............  9:00-5:00 daily...........           10<PHONE_NUMBER>  207 S Water St, Chestertown, MD 21620.
Gratitude Marina...............  9:00-5:00 daily...........            7<PHONE_NUMBER>  5924 Lawton Ave, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Haven Harbor Marina............  8:00-5:00 daily...........            6<PHONE_NUMBER>  20880 Rock Hall Ave, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Kennersley Point Marina........  8:00-5:00 daily...........            3<PHONE_NUMBER>  223 Marina Ln, Church Hill, MD 21623.
Lankford Bay Marina............  24-7......................            7<PHONE_NUMBER>  23002 McKinleyville Rd, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Long Cove Marina...............  8:00-5:00 daily...........            6<PHONE_NUMBER>  22589 Hudson Rd, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Mears Point Marina.............  8:30-7:00 daily...........            6<PHONE_NUMBER>  428 Kent Narrow Way N, Grasonville, MD 21638.
North Point Marina.............  9:00-5:00 daily...........            6<PHONE_NUMBER>  5639 Walnut St, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Osprey Point Marina............  24-7......................            6<PHONE_NUMBER>  20786 Rock Hall Ave, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Piney Narrows Yacht Haven......  8:30-6:30 daily...........            8<PHONE_NUMBER>  500 Piney Narrows Rd, Chester, MD 21619.
Queenstown Harbor Community      24-7......................            6<PHONE_NUMBER>  252 Harbor Lane, Queenstown, MD 21658.
 Pier.
Rock Hall Landing Marina.......  9:00-5:00 daily...........            5<PHONE_NUMBER>  5657 S Hawthorne Ave, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Sailing Emporium...............  8:00-5:00 daily...........            8<PHONE_NUMBER>  21144 Green Lane, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Spring Cove Marina.............  24-7......................            5<PHONE_NUMBER>  21035 Spring Cove Rd, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
Swan Creek Marina..............  24-7......................            7<PHONE_NUMBER>  6043 Lawton Ave, Rock Hall, MD 21661.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Maryland has provided documentation indicating that
the total vessel population is estimated to be between 2,705 and 4,700
boats in the proposed area. Using the higher of those estimates,
approximately 3,196 are identified as recreational vessels, 1,151 are
identified as commercial vessels, and 353 are classified as ``Other.''
The estimated vessel population in all of the affected areas is based
on length: The most conservative estimates provided by the State of
Maryland suggest that there are no vessels less than 16 feet in length,
15 vessels between 16 feet and 25 feet in length, 3,034 vessels between
25 feet and 40 feet in length, and 1,651 vessels greater than 40 feet
in length. Based on the number and size of vessels and EPA guidance for
state and local officials, the estimated number of vessels requiring
pumpout facilities in the Chester River during peak occupancy is 1,207.
    In their application, Maryland has certified that the Chester River
and its tributaries need greater environmental protection and
enhancement of the waters. Maryland has classified the Chester River
and the Chesapeake Bay which it drains into, as impaired for not
meeting applicable state water quality standards. One hundred percent
(100%) of the Chester River is considered impaired by either nutrients,
sediment, bacteria or a combination thereof. The counties of Kent and
Queen Anne's that surround the Chester River rank as the top two
Maryland waterfront counties in terms of beach closings by percentage
of beaches. All beach closings were due to elevated bacteria as
evidenced by high levels of enterococci.
    The Chester River is an important economic driver for the region,
providing jobs and revenue through tourism, commercial and recreational
fishing for fish and shellfish, boating, and more. Many people use the
Chester River for hunting, cruising, nature observation, sightseeing,
waterskiing, tubing, racing, and swimming. Based on a study by the Sage
Policy Group in 2012, cited in the application, the Chester River
supports $86 million in annual local economic activity, 900 jobs, and
$26.7 million in annual labor income.

    Dated: March 10, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Mid-Atlantic Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-06113 Filed 3-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17695-17696]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08398]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 15g-6, SEC File No. 270-349, OMB Control No. 3235-0395

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15g-6--Account
Statements for Penny Stock Customers--(17 CFR 240.15g-6) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15g-6 requires brokers and dealers that sell penny stocks to
provide their customers monthly account statements containing
information with regard to the penny stocks held in customer accounts.
The purpose of the rule is to increase the level of disclosure to
investors concerning penny stocks

generally and specific penny stock transactions.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 195 broker-dealers will
spend an average of 78 hours annually to comply with this rule. Thus,
the total compliance burden is approximately 15,210 burden-hours per
year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    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.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to [email protected].

    Dated: April 18, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08398 Filed 4-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 17972-17973]
[DOCID:fr31mr11-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, April 5,
2011 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
April 5, 2011 will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 29, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7731 Filed 3-29-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32968-32972]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2023-0059]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Hampton Roads,VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the Chesapeake Bay entrance and
Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent waters--Regulated Navigation Area.
Officially codified in 2003, the need for this review and update of the
Regulated Navigation Area has been prompted by changes in the
organizational structure, responsibilities and shipboard requirements
over the last 20 years. The Coast Guard is removing outdated or
redundant language and requirements, including those related to port
security. This action will provide administrative changes and amend
vessel reporting requirements operating within the Regulated Navigation
Area during Maritime Security Level 1.

DATES: This rule is effective June 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0059 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Sector Virginia Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

AIS Automatic Identification System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
JEBLCFS Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story
JHOC Joint Harbor Operations Center
MARSEC US Coast Guard Maritime Security Level
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Chesapeake Bay entrance and Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent
waters--Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) was established on June 12,
2003, following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The U.S.
Coast Guard utilized its authority through the Port and Waterways
Safety Act (PWSA) to urgently establish RNAs in many of the major ports
throughout the United States to control vessel traffic within a port by
specifying times of vessel entry, movement, or departure to, from,
within, or through ports, harbors, or other waters. The Chesapeake Bay
entrance and Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent waters--Regulated
Navigation Area was first codified as a final rule in 68 FR 35172 (June
15, 2003) and was reformatted in 72 FR 17409 (April 9, 2007). Since the
implementation of the RNA, the Captain of the Port Virginia has had the
responsibility and the authority to control vessels within the RNA to
protect port infrastructure, port security, and the safety of the
waterway.

    In the twenty years since the establishment of this RNA, updates to
Coast Guard nomenclature and port security requirements have made
language in this RNA obsolete.
    In response, on March 14, 2023, the Coast Guard published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Regulated Navigation Area; Hampton
Roads, VA (FR 04864). There, we stated why we issued the NPRM, and
invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this RNA
update. During the comment period that ended April 13, 2023, we
received no comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Virginia
(COTP) has determined the need to remove outdated or redundant language
and requirements to make the rule easier to comply with and understand.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published March
14, 2023. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule will make administrative revisions to update certain
names and language as well as amend port security requirements. Below
we provide a description and reasoning for each revision being made.
All other sections not mentioned shall remain unchanged.

33 CFR 165.501(b)--Definitions

    The Coast Guard is revising the definition for Designated
representative of the Captain of the Port in paragraph (b) of 33 CFR
165.501 to no longer include ``Joint Harbor Operations Center
Watchstander.'' Previously, assigned active-duty Navy sailors worked
within the Sector Virginia Command Center, formerly called the Joint
Harbor Operations Center (JHOC). In 2010, the JHOC was disestablished.

33 CFR 165.501(c)--Applicability

    The Coast Guard is expanding the exemption in paragraph (c) to
include vessels engaged in ``search and rescue'' operations. Following
the requirements of this rule is impracticable for these type of
operations, as they would impede or slow operations thus hindering the
chances of a successful rescue.

33 CFR 165.501(d)--Regulations

    The Coast Guard is updating paragraph (d) to reflect name changes
in Naval Commands located within the RNA. In paragraph (d)(1)(iii),
``Commander, Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek'' is now named,
``Commander, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story
(JEBLCFS).'' The Joint Expeditionary Base is comprised of the former
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek and the Army Post of Fort Story,
which were merged under a single command on October 1, 2009.
    In paragraph (d)(6), the requirement for `navigational charts' is
removed as this is redundant to vessel requirements already enforced by
in 33 CFR 164.33.
    In paragraph (d)(9), the stipulation is added so that the paragraph
only applies when the Commandant or Captain of the Port sets MARSEC
level 2 or 3. The requirements of this provision are no longer
necessary at MARSEC level 1 as a result of current Automatic
Identification System (AIS) carriage regulations and Notice of Arrival
regulations enforced by 33 CFR Subpart C. The requirements are still in
effect during times of heightened security and have been modified to
reflect such.
    The removal of paragraph (d)(9)(ii) is necessary as this
requirement is redundant to the regulations found in 33 CFR Subchapter
H, Maritime Security and conflicts with established regulations
governing other Federal Agencies. In paragraph (d)(9)(iv), ``Joint
Harbor Operations Center'' has been removed as it has since been
disestablished.
    Finally, language in paragraph (f)(1) is amended to give the
Captain of the Port maximum authority and discretion permitted by law
to order the movement of a vessel or vessels out of concern for all
hazards, whether safety or security in nature: prohibit entry, restrict
or direct movement within, or order departure from the RNA. This will
allow the Coast Guard to readily fulfil its role of public and port
safety during emergent situations within the RNA.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the reasoning that
this rule makes only minor amendments to an established rule and does
not alter its original intent or purpose. The revisions here will not
significantly change the requirements or behavior of vessels in the RNA
and would have little to no economic impact.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
RNA may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel
owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves minor
administrative amendments to the text of the existing Hampton Roads
RNA. The revisions made in this rule making would not significantly, if
at all, differ from the present impact the Hampton Roads RNA has on the
environment which was determined to be not significantly impactful. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.501 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.501  Chesapeake Bay entrance and Hampton Roads, VA and
adjacent waters--Regulated Navigation Area.

    (a) Location. The waters enclosed by the shoreline and the
following lines are a Regulated Navigation Area:
    (1) Offshore Zone. A line drawn due East from the mean low water
mark at the North Carolina and Virginia border at latitude
36[deg]33'03'' N, longitude 75[deg]52'00'' W, to the Territorial Seas
boundary line at latitude 36[deg]33'05'' N, longitude 75[deg]36'51'' W,
thence generally Northeastward along the Territorial Seas boundary line
to latitude 38[deg]01'39'' N, longitude 74[deg]57'18'' W, thence due
West to the mean low water mark at the Maryland and Virginia border at
latitude 38[deg]01'39'' N, longitude 75[deg]14'30'' W, thence South
along the mean low water mark on the Virginia coast, and eastward of
the Colregs Demarcation Lines across Chincoteague Inlet, Assawoman
Inlet, Gargathy Inlet, Metompkin Inlet, Wachapreague Inlet, Quinby
Inlet, Great Machipongo Inlet, Sand Shoal Inlet, New Inlet, Ship Shoal
Inlet and Little Inlet, to the Colregs Demarcation Line across the
mouth of Chesapeake Bay, continuing south along the Virginia low water
mark and eastward of the Colregs Demarcation Line across Rudee Inlet to
the point of beginning. All positions reference NAD 83.
    (2) Inland zone. The waters enclosed by the shoreline and the
following lines:
    (i) A line drawn across the entrance to Chesapeake Bay between Wise
Point and Cape Charles Light, and then continuing to Cape Henry Light.
    (ii) A line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay between Old Point
Comfort Light and Cape Charles City Range ``A'' Rear Light.
    (iii) A line drawn across the James River along the eastern side of
U.S. Route 17 highway bridge, between Newport News and Isle of Wight
County, Virginia.
    (iv) A line drawn across Chuckatuck Creek along the northern side
of the north span of the U.S. Route 17 highway bridge, between Isle of
Wight County and Suffolk, Virginia.
    (v) A line drawn across the Nansemond River along the northern side
of the Mills Godwin (U.S. Route 17) Bridge, Suffolk, Virginia.
    (vi) A line drawn across the mouth of Bennetts Creek, Suffolk,
Virginia.
    (vii) A line drawn across the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River
along the eastern side of the West Norfolk Bridge, Portsmouth,
Virginia.
    (viii) A line drawn across the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth
River along the northern side of the I-64 highway bridge, Chesapeake,
Virginia.
    (ix) A line drawn across the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River
along the western side of the west span of the Campostella Bridge,
Norfolk, Virginia.
    (x) A line drawn across the Lafayette River along the western side
of the Hampton Boulevard Bridge, Norfolk, Virginia.
    (xi) A line drawn across Little Creek along the eastern side of the
Ocean View Avenue (U.S. Route 60) Bridge, Norfolk, Virginia.
    (xii) A line drawn across Lynnhaven Inlet along the northern side
of Shore Drive (U.S. Route 60) Bridge, Norfolk, Virginia.
    (b) Definitions. In this section:
    CBBT means the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel.
    Coast Guard Patrol Commander is a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard
Sector Virginia.

    Designated representative of the Captain of the Port means a
person, including the command duty officer at Coast Guard Sector
Virginia or the Coast Guard or Navy Patrol Commander who has been
authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his or her behalf and
at his or her request to carry out such orders and directions as
needed. All patrol vessels shall display the Coast Guard Ensign at all
times when underway.
    I-664 Bridge Tunnel means the Monitor Merrimac Bridge Tunnel.
    Inland waters means waters within the COLREGS Line of Demarcation.
    Thimble Shoal Channel consists of the waters bounded by a line
connecting Thimble Shoal Channel Lighted Bell Buoy 1TS, thence to
Thimble Shoal Lighted Gong Buoy 17, thence to Thimble Shoal Lighted
Buoy 19, thence to Thimble Shoal Lighted Buoy 21, thence to Thimble
Shoal Lighted Buoy 22, thence to Thimble Shoal Lighted Buoy 18, thence
to Thimble Shoal Lighted Buoy 2, thence to the beginning.
    Thimble Shoal North Auxiliary Channel consists of the waters in a
rectangular area 450 feet wide adjacent to the north side of Thimble
Shoal Channel, the southern boundary of which extends from Thimble
Shoal Channel Lighted Buoy 2 to Thimble Shoal Lighted Buoy 18.
    Thimble Shoal South Auxiliary Channel consists of the waters in a
rectangular area 450 feet wide adjacent to the south side of Thimble
Shoal Channel, the northern boundary of which extends from Thimble
Shoal Channel Lighted Bell Buoy 1TS, thence to Thimble Shoal Lighted
Gong Buoy 17, thence to Thimble Shoal Lighted Buoy 19, thence to
Thimble Shoal Lighted Buoy 21.
    (c) Applicability. This section applies to all vessels operating
within the Regulated Navigation Area, including naval and public
vessels, except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:
    (1) Law enforcement.
    (2) Search and rescue.
    (3) Servicing aids to navigation.
    (4) Surveying, maintenance, or improvement of waters in the
Regulated Navigation Area.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Anchoring restrictions. No vessel over 65 feet
long may anchor or moor in the inland waters of the Regulated
Navigation Area outside an anchorage designated in Sec.  110.168 of
this title, with these exceptions:
    (i) The vessel has the permission of the Captain of the Port.
    (ii) Only in an emergency, when unable to proceed without
endangering the safety of persons, property, or the environment, may a
vessel anchor in a channel.
    (iii) A vessel may not anchor within the confines of Little Creek
Harbor, Desert Cove, or Little Creek Cove without the permission of the
Captain of the Port or designated representative. The Captain of the
Port shall consult with the Commander, Joint Expeditionary Base Little
Creek-Fort Story, before granting permission to anchor within this
area.
    (2) Anchoring detail requirements. A self-propelled vessel over 100
gross tons, which is equipped with an anchor or anchors (other than a
tugboat equipped with bow fenderwork of a type of construction that
prevents an anchor being rigged for quick release), that is underway
within two nautical miles of the CBBT or the I-664 Bridge Tunnel shall
station its personnel at locations on the vessel from which they can
anchor the vessel without delay in an emergency.
    (3) Secondary towing rig requirements on inland waters. (i) A
vessel over 100 gross tons may not be towed in the inland waters of the
Regulated Navigation Area unless it is equipped with a secondary towing
rig, in addition to its primary towing rig, that:
    (A) Is of sufficient strength for towing the vessel.
    (B) Has a connecting device that can receive a shackle pin of at
least two inches in diameter.
    (C) Is fitted with a recovery pickup line led outboard of the
vessel's hull.
    (ii) A tow consisting of two or more vessels, each of which is less
than 100 gross tons, that has a total gross tonnage that is over 100
gross tons, shall be equipped with a secondary towing rig between each
vessel in the tow, in addition to its primary towing rigs, while the
tow is operating within this Regulated Navigation Area. The secondary
towing rig must:
    (A) Be of sufficient strength for towing the vessels.
    (B) Have connecting devices that can receive a shackle pin of at
least two inches in diameter.
    (C) Be fitted with recovery pickup lines led outboard of the
vessel's hull.
    (4) Thimble Shoals Channel controls. (i) A vessel drawing less than
25 feet may not enter the Thimble Shoal Channel, unless the vessel is
crossing the channel. Masters should consider the squat of their vessel
based upon vessel design and environmental conditions. Channel
crossings shall be made as perpendicular to the channel axis as
possible.
    (ii) Except when crossing the channel, a vessel in the Thimble
Shoal North Auxiliary Channel shall proceed in a westbound direction.
    (iii) Except when crossing the channel, a vessel in the Thimble
Shoal South Auxiliary Channel shall proceed in an eastbound direction.
    (5) Restrictions on vessels with impaired maneuverability--(i)
Before entry. A vessel over 100 gross tons, whose ability to maneuver
is impaired by heavy weather, defective steering equipment, defective
main propulsion machinery, or other damage, may not enter the Regulated
Navigation Area without the permission of the Captain of the Port.
    (ii) After entry. A vessel over 100 gross tons, which is underway
in the Regulated Navigation Area, that has its ability to maneuver
become impaired for any reason, shall, as soon as possible, report the
impairment to the Captain of the Port.
    (6) Requirements for navigation charts, radars, and pilots. No
vessel over 100 gross tons may enter the Regulated Navigation Area,
unless it has on board:
    (i) Corrected paper or electronic charts of the Regulated
Navigation Area.
    (ii) An operative radar during periods of reduced visibility;
    (iii) When in inland waters, a pilot or other person on board with
previous experience navigating vessels on the waters of the Regulated
Navigation Area.
    (7) Emergency procedures. (i) Except as provided in paragraph
(d)(7)(ii) of this section, in an emergency any vessel may deviate from
the regulations in this section to the extent necessary to avoid
endangering the safety of persons, property, or the environment.
    (ii) A vessel over 100 gross tons with an emergency that is located
within two nautical miles of the CBBT or I-664 Bridge Tunnel shall
notify the Captain of the Port of its location and the nature of the
emergency, as soon as possible.
    (8) Vessel speed limits--(i) Little Creek. A vessel may not proceed
at a speed over five knots between the Route 60 Bridge and the mouth of
Fishermans Cove (Northwest Branch of Little Creek).
    (ii) Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. A vessel may not
proceed at a speed over six knots between the junction of the Southern
and Eastern Branches of the Elizabeth River and the Norfolk and
Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Bridge between Chesapeake and Portsmouth,
Virginia.
    (iii) Norfolk Harbor Reach. Nonpublic vessels of 300 gross tons or
more may not proceed at a speed over 10 knots between the Elizabeth
River Channel Lighted Gong Buoy 5 of Norfolk Harbor Reach (southwest of
Sewells Point) at

approximately 36[deg]58'00'' N, 076[deg]20'00'' W, and gated Elizabeth
River Channel Lighted Buoys 17 and 18 of Craney Island Reach (southwest
of Norfolk International Terminal at approximately 36[deg]54'17'' N,
and 076[deg]20'11'' W.
    (9) Port security requirements. This paragraph shall only apply
when the Commandant or the Captain of the Port sets MARSEC Level 2 or
3, as detailed in 33 CFR part 101, for any area, operation, or industry
within the Regulated Navigation Area. Vessels in excess of 300 gross
tons, including tug and barge combinations in excess of 300 gross tons
(combined), shall not enter the Regulated Navigation Area, move within
the Regulated Navigation Area, or be present within the Regulated
Navigation Area, unless they comply with the following requirements:
    (i) Obtain authorization to enter the Regulated Navigation Area
from the designated representative of the Captain of the Port prior to
entry. All vessels entering or remaining in the Regulated Navigation
Area may be subject to a Coast Guard boarding.
    (ii) Report any departure from or movement within the Regulated
Navigation Area to the designated representative of the Captain of the
Port prior to getting underway.
    (iii) The designated representative of the Captain of the Port is
the Sector Command Center (SCC) which shall be contacted on VHF-FM
channel 12, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (iv) In addition to the authorities listed in this part, this
paragraph is promulgated under the authority under 46 U.S.C. 70116.
    (e) Waivers. (1) The Captain of the Port may, upon request, waive
any regulation in this section.
    (2) An application for a waiver must state the need for the waiver
and describe the proposed vessel operations.
    (f) Control of vessels within the regulated navigation area. (1)
When necessary to avoid hazard to vessel traffic, facility or port
infrastructure, or the public, the Captain of the Port may prohibit
entry into the regulated area, direct the movement of a vessel or
vessels, or issue orders requiring vessels to anchor or moor in
specific locations.
    (2) If needed for the maritime, commercial or safety and security
interests of the United States, the Captain of the Port may direct a
vessel or vessels to move from its current location to another location
within the Regulated Navigation Area, or to leave the Regulated
Navigation Area completely.
    (3) The master of a vessel within the Regulated Navigation Area
shall comply with any orders or directions issued to the master's
vessel by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: May 17, 2023.
Shannon N. Gilreath,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023-10935 Filed 5-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P