``McCormick & Baxter'' Regulated Navigation Area, Willamette River, Portland, OR, 31652-31655 [E8-12147]
Download as PDF
31652
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
whether it is appropriate to consider
agreeing to reimbursement of these or
other costs, subject to the level of
remaining appropriated funds and the
limitations specified in CALEA. Despite
some reductions in the level of
appropriated funding, these discussions
create a continuing need for the CALEA
Cost Recovery Regulations. In addition,
as is also described above, the FBI might
in its discretion, and within the very
limited circumstances of an FCC
decision that compliance by a particular
entity is ‘‘not reasonably achievable,’’
agree to pay certain eligible other costs.
Payments in these situations might also
require the entity to submit a claim in
accordance with the Cost Recovery
Regulations. For these reasons, there is
a continued need for the Regulations.
D. 2. The Nature of Complaints or
Comments Received From the Public
Concerning the Regulations
The FBI has processed 84 claims for
reimbursement to date. Each of these
claims was paid, and required only
minor adjustments to the amount
claimed. No complaints have been
received by the FBI regarding the Cost
Recovery Regulations. In those few
cases where the FBI required additional
information beyond the information
initially submitted by the entity with
the claim, the FBI’s questions were
answered satisfactorily and
reimbursement was made.
There have been no instances since
the adoption of the Regulations where
an entity has expressed to the FBI any
difficulties in its compliance with the
Regulations. In fact, in many cases,
carriers expressed satisfaction that they
had received proper reimbursement for
the costs they had incurred. In addition,
some carriers found the Regulations to
be useful, because the process allowed
the entity to proceed with CALEArelated modifications while after
receiving assurance from the FBI that
eligible costs would be reimbursed. The
Regulations thus serve as a helpful tool
that provide carriers and other entities
with guidance as to how to verify the
eligibility of compliance costs for
reimbursement before such costs are
actually incurred.
Additionally, as described above, the
FBI is also authorized to use an alternate
procedure authorized in, whereby the
FBI may agree to a to firm fixed-price
arrangement with a carrier,
manufacturer or other entity. See Public
Law 106–246, Div. B, Title II, July 13,
2000, 114 Stat. 542. This alternative
provides flexibility for cases where a
firm-fixed price is appropriate, and has
been used by the FBI in two
arrangements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Jun 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
The FBI also considered whether any
changes that could be made to improve
the cost-reimbursement process. Based
on the flexibility inherent in the
Regulations themselves and the firmfixed price strategy, and also on the
success of the Regulations to date, the
FBI determined that no changes are
necessary.
D. 3. The Complexity of the Regulations
The CALEA Cost Recovery
Regulations are roughly similar in
complexity to other existing costaccounting regulations imposed by the
Federal government, including for
example, the Federal Acquisition
Regulations. Based upon our review, the
Regulations do not appear to be
excessively complex. In the FBI’s
experience, all of the entities submitting
claims in accordance with the
Regulations have successfully complied
with minimal assistance from the FBI.
D. 4. The Extent to Which the
Regulations Overlap, Duplicate, or
Conflict With Other Federal Rules and
to the Extent Feasible With State and
Local Government Rules
No other Federal or State regulations
overlap, duplicate or conflict with the
CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations. This
is because the FBI, as the authorized
delegate of the Attorney General, is the
only Federal or State agency with the
authority and responsibility for
implementing the cost recovery
provisions of CALEA. As described
above, there is no analogue to CALEA
under State law.
D. 5. The Length of Time Since the
Regulations Have Been Evaluated or the
Degree to Which Technology, Economic
Conditions, or Other Factors Have
Changed in the Area Affected by the
Regulations
The Regulations were evaluated in
some respect in 2000, when it was
determined that it would be beneficial
to add flexibility by providing the
government with the discretion to make
firm fixed-price agreements in certain
cases. The FBI has re-evaluated the
Regulations pursuant to this inquiry.
Technology, economic conditions, and
other factors have changed in the
telecommunications area affected by the
Regulations since the time when they
were adopted. For example, the wide
deployment by carriers of new
technologies, such as broadband
internet access and Voice-Over-InternetProtocol, has led the FCC to adopt new
rules for CALEA-compliance. See In the
Matter of Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act and
Broadband Access and Services, First
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
14989 (2005). These changes however
have no impact on the requirements for
the Cost Recovery Regulations, since the
Regulations are based on accounting
concepts which are essentially neutral
as to technology, economic conditions,
or other factors. For example, the
application of the definition of
‘‘reasonable costs’’ found in 28 CFR
100.12(a) (‘‘A cost is reasonable if, in its
nature and amount, it does not exceed
that which would be incurred by a
prudent person in the conduct of a
competitive business.’’) would be the
same without regard to the technology
utilized by the entity incurring the cost.
This is the case for all of the Cost
Recovery Regulations. For these reasons
the FBI has determined that no changes
are necessary at this time to the Cost
Recovery Regulations.
E. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, the
FBI concludes that the CALEA Cost
Recovery Regulations do not have a
significant economic impact upon a
substantial number of small entities.
The FBI further concludes after
consideration of the criteria set forth in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Section
610(b), Title 5, United States Code, that
the Regulations should be maintained in
their current status, without changes.
Dated: April 10, 2008.
Marybeth Paglino,
Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
CALEA Implementation Unit.
[FR Doc. E8–12399 Filed 6–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2008–0121]
RIN 1625–AA11
‘‘McCormick & Baxter’’ Regulated
Navigation Area, Willamette River,
Portland, OR
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing a Regulated Navigation
Area on the Willamette River, Portland
Oregon Captain of the Port Zone. This
action is necessary to preserve the
integrity of the engineered pilot cap
placed over contaminated sediments as
part of an Environmental Protection
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Agency (EPA) Superfund cleanup action
at the McCormick & Baxter Creosoting
Company Superfund Site. This
proposed rule is needed to prohibit
activities that would cause disturbance
of pilot cap material, which was placed
to isolate and contain underlying
contaminated sediment.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
July 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard Docket
number USCG–2008–0121 to the Docket
Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(1) Online: https://
www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on
the Ground Floor of the West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202–366–9329.
(4) Fax: 202–493–2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
MST1 Lucia Mack, Waterways Division,
Sector Portland, OR at 503–240–9301. If
you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation (DOT)
to use the Docket Management Facility.
Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’
paragraph below.
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2008–0121),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you
include your name and mailing address,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Jun 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
an e-mail address, or a phone number in
the body of your document so that we
can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission. You may
submit your comments and material by
electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery
to the Docket Management Facility at
the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit your comments and
material by only one means. If you
submit them by mail or delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger
than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period. We may
change this proposed rule in view of
them.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov at any time.
Enter the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2008–0121) in the
Search box, and click ‘‘Go>>.’’ You may
also visit the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12–140 on the
ground floor of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of all comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation’s Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477), or you may visit https://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES
explaining why one would be
beneficial. If we determine that one
would aid this rulemaking, we will hold
one at a time and place announced by
a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The McCormick & Baxter Creosoting
Company operated between 1944 and
1991, treating wood products with
creosote, pentachlorohenol, and
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31653
inorganic (arsenic, copper, chromium,
and zinc) preservative solutions.
Historically, process wastewaters were
discharged directly to the Willamette
River, and other process wastes were
dumped in several areas of the Site.
Significant concentrations of woodtreating chemicals have been found in
soil and groundwater at the site and in
river sediments adjacent to the Site. The
EPA listed the Site on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in June 1994 based
on information collected by DEQ
between September 1990 and September
1992. The EPA also designated the DEQ
as the lead agency for implementing the
selected remedy while funding for
remedial design and construction was
primarily provided by EPA. The DEQ
implemented a number of interim
removal measures between 1992 and
1994, including plant demolition,
sludge and soil removals, and extraction
of creosote from the groundwater
aquifers. The Record of Decision (ROD)
was issued by WPA and DEQ in April
1996 after considering public comments
on the Proposed Cleanup Plan. The
remedy addressed contaminated
groundwater, soil and sediment. A
component of the groundwater remedy,
initiated in 1994, consisted of an
automated creosote extraction and
groundwater treatment system.
However, due to poor product recovery
and high operating costs, the automated
system was discontinued in late 2000.
Creosote is currently being recovered by
passive and manual methods.
Approximately 6,200 gallons have been
recovered since 1991. A contingency
groundwater remedy was implemented
in the summer of 2003, with the
construction of a combination steel
sheet pile and soil Bentonite slurry wall
surrounding 18 acres. The purpose of
the barrier wall is to prevent migration
of creosote to the Willamette River.
Implementation of the soil remedy
began in March 1999 with the removal
of 33,000 tons of highly contaminated
soil and debris. The soil remedy was
completed in September 2005 following
installation of a combination
impermeable/earthen cap—the
impermeable portion covering the area
within the subsurface barrier wall. The
sediment remedy was implemented in
2004 and primarily consisted of an
armored sand cap placed over 23 acres
of contaminated sediment. Construction
occurred during the summers of 2004
and 2005. Sediment cap construction
performed in 2005 followed
construction work performed by the
City of Portland to stabilize two high
pressure sewer lines located within a
one-acre portion of the sediment cap. In
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
31654
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
addition to the sand layer, an oil
adsorptive material known as
organophyllic clay was used in two
creosote seep areas. To protect the cap
from erosion, the sand and
organophyllic clay were armored with a
combination of rock and articulated
concrete blocks. Erosional forces
evaluated in designing the cap armoring
layer included hydraulic-induced
stresses due to river currents associated
with a 500-year flood, vessel-induced
propeller velocities from a tractor tug
and various sized recreational boats,
wind waves associated with a 100-year
wind storm and vessel wakes associated
with various boats including a 100-ft
fireboat traveling at 14 knots. These
forces were evaluated for river level
variations due to tidal action and flood
currents. Additionally, numerical
modeling was used to analyze wave
transformation and capping of the
riverbank with two feet of topsoil, turf
reinforcement matting and herbaceous
vegetation. Revegetation of the capped
riverbank with native trees and shrubs
took place in February 2006 after the
soil had been stabilized with the native
grasses planted in November 2004. The
DEQ has requested the issuance of this
RNA in order to prohibit activities that
may damage the engineered sediment
cap at the Site. Although the sediment
cap is designed to withstand a variety of
anticipated erosional forces, the cap is
susceptible to damage, such as from
propeller wash, deployment of barge
spuds, deployment and dragging of
anchors, and grounding of large vessels.
If the engineered sediment cap were to
be damaged by marine activities, the
contaminated sediments which underlie
the cap could be released to the river
thereby posing an unacceptable threat to
public health and the environment.
Discussion of Rule
This proposed rule would create a
regulated navigation area (RNA) on all
waters of the Willamette River
encompassed by a line commencing at
45°34′33″ N, 122°44′17″ W to 45°34′32″
N, 122°44′18″ W thence to 45°34′35″ N,
122°44′24″ W thence to 45°34′35″ N,
122°44′27″ W thence to 45°34′35″ N,
122°44′36″ W thence to 45°34′35″ N,
122°44′37″ W thence to 45°34′38″ N,
122°44′42″ W to 45°34′39″ N, 122°44′43″
W thence to 45°34′44″ N, 122°44′51″ W
thence to 45°34′45″ N, 122°44′53″ W
thence to 45°34′47″ N, 122°44′51″ W
thence to 45°34′45″ N, 122°44′46″ W to
45°34′45″ N, 122°44′45″ W thence to
45°34′47″ N, 122°44′43″ W thence to
45°34′46″ N, 122°44′42″ W thence to
45°34′48″ N, 122°44′40″ W thence to
45°34′48″ N, 122°44′38″ W and along
the shoreline to 45°34′46″ N, 122°44′39″
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Jun 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
W and then back to the point of origin.
Vessels are prohibited from anchoring,
spudding, dredging, laying cable,
dragging, trawling, conducting salvage
operations. Operation of commercial
vessels of any size, operating
recreational vessels greater than 30 feet
in length, and operating other vessels in
excess of no wake speed or the
minimum speed needed to maintain
steerage is prohibited.
Violations of the RNA regulations are
punishable by civil penalties (not to
exceed $35,500 per violation), criminal
penalties (imprisonment for not more
than 10 years and a fine of not more
than $250,000) and in rem liability
against the offending vessel.
limited in size leaving ample room for
vessels to navigate around the area.
Vessels engaged in commerce with the
existing refueling pipeline located
within the site should not be affected by
this regulation in those activities but are
advised to minimize potential impacts
such as anchoring, wake scouring, and
dragging in the vicinity of the pilot cap.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary. The effect of this
regulation will not be significant based
on the fact there will be minimal if any
effect on the navigable waterway around
the proposed regulated area due to the
regulated navigation area’s proximity to
the shore. The local maritime
community will be informed of the
regulated navigation area via marine
informational 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),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
MST1 Lucia Mack, Waterways Division,
Sector Portland, at 503–240–9301. 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.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule will affect
the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the Willamette
River. This proposed rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because the regulated navigation area is
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Collection of Information
This 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 proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule would not
result in such expenditure, we do
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule will not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an
economically significant rule and will
not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it 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
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f) and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is not likely to have a
significant effect on the human
environment. There are no factors in
this case that would limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. A preliminary
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’
supporting this determination is
available in the docket under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, and
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.1323 to read as follows:
Technical Standards
§ 165.1323 Regulated Navigation Area:
Willamette River Portland, Oregon Captain
of the Port Zone.
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
(a) Location. The following is a
regulated navigation area (RNA): All
waters of the Willamette River
encompassed by a line commencing at
45°34′33″ N, 122°44′17″ W to 45°34′32″
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Jun 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31655
N, 122°44′18″ W thence to 45°34′35″ N,
122°44′24″ W thence to 45°34′35″ N,
122°44′27″ W thence to 45°34′35″ N,
122°44′36″ W thence to 45°34′35″ N,
122°44′37″ W thence to 45°34′38″ N,
122°44′42″ W to 45°34′39″ N, 122°44′43″
W thence to 45°34′44″ N, 122°44′51″ W
thence to 45°34′45″ N, 122°44′53″ W
thence to 45°34′47″ N, 122°44′51″ W
thence to 45°34′45″ N, 122°44′46″ W to
45°34′45″ N, 122°44′45″ W thence to
45°34′47″ N, 122°44′43″ W thence to
45°34′46″ N, 122°44′42″ W thence to
45°34′48″ N, 122°44′40″ W thence to
45°34′48″ N, 122°44′38″ W and along
the shoreline to 45°34′46″ N, 122°44′39″
W and back to the point of origin. All
coordinates reference 1983 North
American Datum (NAD 83).
(b) Regulations. (1) Anchoring,
spudding, dredging, laying cable,
dragging, trawling, conducting salvage
operations, operating commercial
vessels of any size, and operating
recreational vessels greater than 30 feet
in length are prohibited in the regulated
area.
(2) All vessels transiting or accessing
the regulated area shall do so at no wake
speed or at the minimum speed
necessary to maintain steerage.
Dated: May 6, 2008.
J.P. Currier,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8–12147 Filed 6–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Parts 1 and 41
[Docket No. PTO–C02008–0004]
RIN 0651–AC21
Revision of Patent Fees for Fiscal Year
2009
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (Office) is proposing
to adjust certain patent fee amounts for
fiscal year 2009 to reflect fluctuations in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The
patent statute provides for the annual
CPI adjustment of patent fees set by
statute to recover the higher costs
associated with doing business.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 3, 2008. No
public hearing will be held.
E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM
03JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31652-31655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12147]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2008-0121]
RIN 1625-AA11
``McCormick & Baxter'' Regulated Navigation Area, Willamette
River, Portland, OR
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a Regulated Navigation Area on
the Willamette River, Portland Oregon Captain of the Port Zone. This
action is necessary to preserve the integrity of the engineered pilot
cap placed over contaminated sediments as part of an Environmental
Protection
[[Page 31653]]
Agency (EPA) Superfund cleanup action at the McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Company Superfund Site. This proposed rule is needed to
prohibit activities that would cause disturbance of pilot cap material,
which was placed to isolate and contain underlying contaminated
sediment.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard Docket
number USCG-2008-0121 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Online: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MST1 Lucia Mack, Waterways Division,
Sector Portland, OR at 503-240-9301. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0121), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0121)
in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit https://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Company operated between 1944 and
1991, treating wood products with creosote, pentachlorohenol, and
inorganic (arsenic, copper, chromium, and zinc) preservative solutions.
Historically, process wastewaters were discharged directly to the
Willamette River, and other process wastes were dumped in several areas
of the Site. Significant concentrations of wood-treating chemicals have
been found in soil and groundwater at the site and in river sediments
adjacent to the Site. The EPA listed the Site on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in June 1994 based on information collected by
DEQ between September 1990 and September 1992. The EPA also designated
the DEQ as the lead agency for implementing the selected remedy while
funding for remedial design and construction was primarily provided by
EPA. The DEQ implemented a number of interim removal measures between
1992 and 1994, including plant demolition, sludge and soil removals,
and extraction of creosote from the groundwater aquifers. The Record of
Decision (ROD) was issued by WPA and DEQ in April 1996 after
considering public comments on the Proposed Cleanup Plan. The remedy
addressed contaminated groundwater, soil and sediment. A component of
the groundwater remedy, initiated in 1994, consisted of an automated
creosote extraction and groundwater treatment system. However, due to
poor product recovery and high operating costs, the automated system
was discontinued in late 2000. Creosote is currently being recovered by
passive and manual methods. Approximately 6,200 gallons have been
recovered since 1991. A contingency groundwater remedy was implemented
in the summer of 2003, with the construction of a combination steel
sheet pile and soil Bentonite slurry wall surrounding 18 acres. The
purpose of the barrier wall is to prevent migration of creosote to the
Willamette River. Implementation of the soil remedy began in March 1999
with the removal of 33,000 tons of highly contaminated soil and debris.
The soil remedy was completed in September 2005 following installation
of a combination impermeable/earthen cap--the impermeable portion
covering the area within the subsurface barrier wall. The sediment
remedy was implemented in 2004 and primarily consisted of an armored
sand cap placed over 23 acres of contaminated sediment. Construction
occurred during the summers of 2004 and 2005. Sediment cap construction
performed in 2005 followed construction work performed by the City of
Portland to stabilize two high pressure sewer lines located within a
one-acre portion of the sediment cap. In
[[Page 31654]]
addition to the sand layer, an oil adsorptive material known as
organophyllic clay was used in two creosote seep areas. To protect the
cap from erosion, the sand and organophyllic clay were armored with a
combination of rock and articulated concrete blocks. Erosional forces
evaluated in designing the cap armoring layer included hydraulic-
induced stresses due to river currents associated with a 500-year
flood, vessel-induced propeller velocities from a tractor tug and
various sized recreational boats, wind waves associated with a 100-year
wind storm and vessel wakes associated with various boats including a
100-ft fireboat traveling at 14 knots. These forces were evaluated for
river level variations due to tidal action and flood currents.
Additionally, numerical modeling was used to analyze wave
transformation and capping of the riverbank with two feet of topsoil,
turf reinforcement matting and herbaceous vegetation. Revegetation of
the capped riverbank with native trees and shrubs took place in
February 2006 after the soil had been stabilized with the native
grasses planted in November 2004. The DEQ has requested the issuance of
this RNA in order to prohibit activities that may damage the engineered
sediment cap at the Site. Although the sediment cap is designed to
withstand a variety of anticipated erosional forces, the cap is
susceptible to damage, such as from propeller wash, deployment of barge
spuds, deployment and dragging of anchors, and grounding of large
vessels. If the engineered sediment cap were to be damaged by marine
activities, the contaminated sediments which underlie the cap could be
released to the river thereby posing an unacceptable threat to public
health and the environment.
Discussion of Rule
This proposed rule would create a regulated navigation area (RNA)
on all waters of the Willamette River encompassed by a line commencing
at 45[deg]34'33'' N, 122[deg]44'17'' W to 45[deg]34'32'' N,
122[deg]44'18'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'24'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'27'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N,
122[deg]44'36'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'37'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'38'' N, 122[deg]44'42'' W to 45[deg]34'39'' N,
122[deg]44'43'' W thence to 45[deg]34'44'' N, 122[deg]44'51'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'53'' W thence to 45[deg]34'47'' N,
122[deg]44'51'' W thence to 45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'46'' W to
45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'45'' W thence to 45[deg]34'47'' N,
122[deg]44'43'' W thence to 45[deg]34'46'' N, 122[deg]44'42'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'48'' N, 122[deg]44'40'' W thence to 45[deg]34'48'' N,
122[deg]44'38'' W and along the shoreline to 45[deg]34'46'' N,
122[deg]44'39'' W and then back to the point of origin. Vessels are
prohibited from anchoring, spudding, dredging, laying cable, dragging,
trawling, conducting salvage operations. Operation of commercial
vessels of any size, operating recreational vessels greater than 30
feet in length, and operating other vessels in excess of no wake speed
or the minimum speed needed to maintain steerage is prohibited.
Violations of the RNA regulations are punishable by civil penalties
(not to exceed $35,500 per violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment
for not more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $250,000) and in
rem liability against the offending vessel.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The effect of
this regulation will not be significant based on the fact there will be
minimal if any effect on the navigable waterway around the proposed
regulated area due to the regulated navigation area's proximity to the
shore. The local maritime community will be informed of the regulated
navigation area via marine informational Notice to Mariners.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators
of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the
Willamette River. This proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
regulated navigation area is limited in size leaving ample room for
vessels to navigate around the area. Vessels engaged in commerce with
the existing refueling pipeline located within the site should not be
affected by this regulation in those activities but are advised to
minimize potential impacts such as anchoring, wake scouring, and
dragging in the vicinity of the pilot cap.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact MST1 Lucia Mack,
Waterways Division, Sector Portland, at 503-240-9301. 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 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 proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such
expenditure, we do
[[Page 31655]]
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule will not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have
a significant effect on the human environment. There are no factors in
this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under
section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. A preliminary ``Environmental
Analysis Check List'' supporting this determination is available in the
docket under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add Sec. 165.1323 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1323 Regulated Navigation Area: Willamette River Portland,
Oregon Captain of the Port Zone.
(a) Location. The following is a regulated navigation area (RNA):
All waters of the Willamette River encompassed by a line commencing at
45[deg]34'33'' N, 122[deg]44'17'' W to 45[deg]34'32'' N,
122[deg]44'18'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'24'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'27'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N,
122[deg]44'36'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'37'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'38'' N, 122[deg]44'42'' W to 45[deg]34'39'' N,
122[deg]44'43'' W thence to 45[deg]34'44'' N, 122[deg]44'51'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'53'' W thence to 45[deg]34'47'' N,
122[deg]44'51'' W thence to 45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'46'' W to
45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'45'' W thence to 45[deg]34'47'' N,
122[deg]44'43'' W thence to 45[deg]34'46'' N, 122[deg]44'42'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'48'' N, 122[deg]44'40'' W thence to 45[deg]34'48'' N,
122[deg]44'38'' W and along the shoreline to 45[deg]34'46'' N,
122[deg]44'39'' W and back to the point of origin. All coordinates
reference 1983 North American Datum (NAD 83).
(b) Regulations. (1) Anchoring, spudding, dredging, laying cable,
dragging, trawling, conducting salvage operations, operating commercial
vessels of any size, and operating recreational vessels greater than 30
feet in length are prohibited in the regulated area.
(2) All vessels transiting or accessing the regulated area shall do
so at no wake speed or at the minimum speed necessary to maintain
steerage.
Dated: May 6, 2008.
J.P. Currier,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-12147 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P