[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 28508]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11379]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9014-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 05/05/2014 Through 05/09/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140146, Final EIS, NMFS, 00, Amending the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Plan Vertical Line Rule, Review Period Ends: 06/
16/2014, Contact: Kate Swails<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140147, Draft EIS, USFS, CA, Rim Fire Recovery, Comment
Period Ends: 06/30/2014, Contact: Maria Benech<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140148, Final EIS, FTA, TX, Tex Rail Corridor Commuter Rail
Project, Review Period Ends: 06/20/2014, Contact: Don Koski 817-978-
0571.
EIS No. 20140149, Final EIS, USN, CA, US Navy F-35C West Coast
Homebasing, Review Period Ends: 06/16/2014, Contact: Amy Kelly 619-532-
2799.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140097, Draft EIS, OSM, NM, Four Corners Power Plant and
Navajo Mine Energy Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/27/2014, Contact:
Marcelo Calle<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to the FR Notice Published 03/28/
2014; Extending Comment Period from 5/27/2014 to 6/27/2014.

    Dated: May 13, 2014.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-11379 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2506-2507]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1318; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-33]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mount Sterling and Pittsfield, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Mount Sterling and
Pittsfield, IL. This action is due to airspace reviews conducted as
part of the decommissioning of the Quincy very high frequency (VHF)
omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimal Operational
Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of Pittsfield
Penstone Municipal Airport, Pittsfield, IL, are also being updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Mount Sterling Municipal Airport, Mount Sterling, IL,
and Pittsfield Penstone Municipal Airport, Pittsfield, IL, to support
instrument flight rule operations at these airports.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 66632; November 4, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-1318
to amend the Class E airspace at Mount Sterling and Pittsfield, IL.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 7.3-mile (increased from a 6.6-mile) radius of
Mount Sterling Municipal Airport, Mount Sterling, IL;
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to within a 6.4-mile

(decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Pittsfield Penstone Municipal
Airport, Pittsfield, IL; and updates the geographic coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Quincy VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Mount Sterling, IL [Amended]

Mount Sterling Municipal Airport, IL
    (Lat. 39[deg]59'07'' N, long. 90[deg]48'15'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.3-mile radius of Mount Sterling Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Pittsfield, IL [Amended]

Pittsfield Penstone Municipal Airport, IL
    (Lat. 39[deg]38'20'' N, long. 90[deg]46'43'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Pittsfield Penstone Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 9, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-00495 Filed 1-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 23849]
[DOCID:fr21my09-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13336-000]

FFP Project 34, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

May 14, 2009.
    On November 24, 2008, FFP Project 34, LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 6 Water Power
Project (Lock & Dam 6 Project), to be located at River Mile 714.3 on
the Mississippi River in Trempealeau County, Wisconsin and Winona
County, Minnesota, and near the town of Trempealeau, WI. Also, the
reservoir runs through a portion of the Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
    The proposed Lock & Dam 6 Project would be integral with: (1) The
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lock & Dam No. 6 comprised of an
893-foot-long gated dam section with 5 roller gates and 10 tainter
gates, and a 600 foot-long lock; and (2) an existing 14-mile long,
21,817-acre reservoir at a normal pool elevation of 645.5 feet mean sea
level and 31,200 acre-feet of storage.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 30 Very Low Head (VHL)
generating units and 70 hydrokinetic generating units totaling 11.0
megawatts (MW) installed capacity; (2) a new 69-kilovolt transmission
line connected to an existing above ground local distribution system;
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated
average annual generation of 55,900 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irvin, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, phone (978)
252-7631.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13336) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11801 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22100-22103]
[DOCID:fr12my09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1013]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zones; Escorted Vessels, Mobile, AL, Captain of the Port
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is making permanent an interim rule
establishing a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or
more Coast Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law
enforcement assets, within the Captain of the Port Zone Mobile, AL.
This action is necessary to ensure the safe transit and mooring of
escorted vessels as well as the safety and security of personnel and
port facilities. No vessel or person is allowed inside the security
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile, AL or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective June 11, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-1013 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-1013 in the Docket
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID
column. They are also available for inspection or copying two
locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the Coast Guard
Sector Mobile Prevention Office located on South Broad Street, Mobile,
Alabama 36615, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call LT Jonathan Mangum at Coast Guard Sector Mobile Prevention
Department, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On November 13, 2008, we published an Interim Rule with request for
comments (IR) entitled Security Zones; Escorted Vessels, Mobile, AL,
Captain of the Port Zone in the Federal Register (73 FR 67104). We
received comments from three commenters. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened the need
for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of
the United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose
presence or movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist
acts; or those for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a
threat to national security. The President of the United States found
that the security of the United States is and continues to have been
endangered following the attacks of September 11 (E.O. 13273, 67 FR
56215 (Sep. 3, 2002), and 73 FR 54489 (Sep. 18, 2008)). Additionally,
national security and intelligence officials continue to warn that
future terrorist attacks are likely. The ports within the Captain of
the Port (COTP) Zone Mobile, AL, as described in 33 CFR 3.40-10,
frequently receive vessels that require additional security, including,
but not limited to, vessels carrying sensitive Department of Defense
cargoes, vessels carrying dangerous cargoes, and foreign naval vessels.
The COTP has determined that these vessels have a significant
vulnerability to subversive activity by other vessels or persons, or,
in some cases, themselves pose a risk to a port and the public within
the COTP Zone. This rule enables the COTP Mobile to provide effective
port security, while minimizing the public's confusion and easing the
administrative burden of implementing separate temporary security zone
rules for each escorted vessel.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    All three commenters expressed concern that a 500-yard security
zone would exceed the width of some navigable waters in the COTP Zone
and thereby effectively shutdown navigation. These comments recognized
that the COTP Mobile intends to permit vessels to transit through the
zone if such transit can be done safely, but the commenters expressed
concern that the volume of maritime traffic in some of the waterways
may create congestion and delays. We appreciate these concerns, but it
is imperative that the law enforcement assets on-scene have an
adequately sized buffer zone around the vessel to increase their
ability to distinguish threats and to respond to threats that
materialize. We also do not believe that a 500-yard security zone, even
if extending bank-to-bank, will appreciably affect commercial
navigation. Law enforcement assets on-scene will be designated by the
COTP Mobile to allow safe transit through the zone, which is now
routinely done for the many safety and security zones throughout the
COTP Mobile zone without undue impact on navigation. The IR and this
Final Rule establish a permanent mechanism for vessels requiring escort
instead of using the ad-hoc security zone processes that had been COTP
Mobile's past practice, and in doing so provide law enforcement assets
with the appropriate legal basis and tools to ensure the security of
the marine transportation system. Accordingly, this Final Rule does not
change the size of the security zones established in the IR.
    Two commenters expressed concern with the IR's provisions that
allow, in some instances, the continuation of a security zone while the
vessel is moored, even when law enforcement assets are not present.
These commenters explained that without law enforcement assets on-scene
the public would not be aware of the existence of the security zone,
and there would be no efficient mechanism for obtaining approval from
the COTP Mobile to transit through the zone. In instances where the
security zone will continue without law enforcement assets present, the
IR requires continued notice to the public through visible signs and
markings and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners. We believe these
requirements ensure sufficient notice to the public regarding the
establishment of the security zone. However, we do agree that the lack
of law enforcement assets on-scene in such cases could decrease the
COTP Mobile's response to requests to transit through the zone in
circumstances where that zone extends bank-to-bank or well into a
navigable channel. Therefore, in the final rule, we are amending the
definition of an escorted vessel to continue to permit the continuation
of a security zone under this Final Rule for an escorted vessel that is
moored, but only when Coast Guard or other Federal, State, or local

law enforcement assets remain on-scene to enforce the zone. Under the
final rule, notice is provided to the public that the security zone
remains in effect around a moored vessel through the continued presence
of these properly marked law enforcement assets and the Broadcast
Notice to Mariners. This change from the interim rule to the final rule
does not constrain COTP Mobile from taking any additional regulatory or
other action that may be deemed necessary to ensure the safety and
security of the marine transportation system. Continuing a security
zone around a moored vessel is unlikely to occur in most cases, further
minimizing impacts to navigation, but the COTP Mobile must retain the
flexibility to continue the security zone by maintaining the presence
of law enforcement assets while the vessel is moored to address
emerging threats without having to undertake additional rulemaking.
    One commenter questioned how the public will know when a security
zone that remains around a moored vessel ends. While not specific, we
interpret this comment to relate to those situations where no law
enforcement assets remained on-scene to continue to enforce the zone.
We resolved this issue with the change noted above: The security zone
around an escorted vessel while moored will remain in effect only when
Coast Guard or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement assets
remain on-scene to enforce the zone. In the final rule, we modified
paragraph (e) Notice of Security Zone to also reflect this change. In
paragraph (e) we note that public notice about the existence of a
security zone will be continuously broadcast, typically at 30-minute
intervals, for the duration of the security zone, and escorted vessels
will be identified by the presence of law enforcement assets. Thus,
under the final rule, when all law enforcement assets depart the scene,
the security zone ends, and the Broadcast Notice to Mariners will
terminate, whether the vessel is underway or moored.
    One commenter proposed that we provide 12-hours advance notice of a
security zone and disseminate this notice through a Marine Safety
Information Broadcast (MSIB). We did not adopt this proposal for
several reasons. Primarily, giving such broad and early notice to the
public increases the security risk to the escorted vessel, as well as
the Coast Guard and other agency escort assets, by providing advance
targeting information to potential terrorist threats. Also, many times
the Coast Guard may not know until shortly before a vessel's arrival
that an escort is required, making 12-hour advance notice impractical.
We believe that the visual notice provided by the presence of the
properly marked law enforcement escorts, usually undertaken well before
the vessel's arrival inside the port environment, as well as the
advance notice provided by the Broadcast Notice to Mariners, gives
ample awareness to the public of the security zone.
    Another commenter proposed that non-Coast Guard assets escorting
vessels and enforcing the security zone be placed under Coast Guard
command responsibility. We disagree. Each law enforcement agency
supporting the escort and ensuring the integrity of the security zone
will be acting under its own organic legal authority. However, we will
ensure that the COTP has adequate communications with all law
enforcement assets involved in the escort to ensure adequate Coast
Guard oversight and response and appropriate COTP engagement.
    Finally, one commenter questioned whether the Coast Guard had the
resources to sustain a continuous presence on-scene to enforce a
security zone around a moored vessel. Concerns about Coast Guard
capacity, and other law enforcement asset capabilities, are beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The limited geographic area
impacted by the security zone will not restrict the movement or routine
operation of commercial or recreational vessels through the Ports
within the Captain of the Port Zone Mobile. Vessels requiring transit
through the security zone also may be permitted to do so with approval
by COTP Mobile or a designated representative.

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 may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit in the vicinity of escorted vessels on the navigable waters of
the Captain of the Port Zone, Mobile, Alabama. This rule would not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
the zones are limited in size, encompassing the escorted vessel and a
500-yard radius around the vessel only. In most cases, the security
zones will leave ample space for vessels to navigate around them. If
not, and security conditions permit, the COTP will attempt to provide
flexibility for individual vessels to transit trough the zones as
needed. Therefore, the security zones will not significantly impact
commercial and passenger vessel traffic patterns. Additionally,
mariners will be given advance notice of all security zones created
under this rule via broadcast notice to mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Although 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 Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. Paragraph (34)(g) covers regulations
establishing, disestablishing, or changing security zones. This rule
involves establishing security zones around escorted vessels in the
COTP Zone Mobile, AL. An environmental analysis checklist and a
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.

0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 165, which was
published at 73 FR 67107 on November 13, 2008, is adopted as a final
rule with the following changes:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5;
Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  165.836, as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), revise the definition of ``escorted vessel'' as
set forth below;
0
b. In paragraph (a), in the definition of ``minimum safe speed'',
remove the two occurrences of the phrase ``for navigation'';
0
c. In paragraph (c), remove the word ``in'' from the last sentence and
add in its place the phrase ``described in paragraph (b) of'';
0
d. In paragraph (d)(1), add the phrase ``of this part'' after ``Sec.
165.33'';
0
e. Revise paragraph (e) to read as set forth below.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  165.836  Security Zone; Escorted Vessels, Mobile, Alabama,
Captain of the Port.

    (a) * * *
    Escorted vessel means a vessel, other than a large U.S. naval
vessel as defined in 33 CFR 165.2015, that is accompanied by one or
more Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State, or local law
enforcement agency assets clearly identifiable by flashing lights,
vessel markings, or with agency insignia as follows: Coast Guard
surface or air asset displaying the Coast Guard insignia. State and/or
local law enforcement asset displaying the applicable agency markings
and/or equipment associated with the agency. Escorted vessel also means
a moored or anchored vessel that was escorted by Coast Guard assets or
other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency assets to its
present location and some or all of those properly marked assets

remain on-scene to continue to enforce the security zone.
* * * * *
    (e) Notice of security zone. The COTP will inform the public of the
existence or status of the security zones around escorted vessels in
the regulated area by broadcast notices to mariners, normally issued at
30-minute intervals while the security zones remains in effect.
Escorted vessels will be identified by the presence of Coast Guard
assets or other Federal, State or local law enforcement agency assets.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 27, 2009.
E.M. Stanton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Mobile.
[FR Doc. E9-10969 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P