Ninth Coast Guard District Sector Realignment; Northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, 13508-13511 [2011-5731]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13508
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(d) The actions of the Hearing Office
Chief Administrative Law Judge taken
under this section are final and not
subject to further review.
PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE,
SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY
INSURANCE (1950–ll)
Subpart J—[Amended].
1. The authority citation for subpart J
of part 404 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a), (b),
(d)–(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j),
404(f), 405(a), (b), (d)–(h), and (j), 421, 423(i),
425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97–455, 96
Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)–
(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42
U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203,
118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
■
2. Add § 404.937 to read as follows:
PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL
SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED,
BLIND, AND DISABLED
Subpart N—[Amended].
3. The authority citation for subpart N
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L.
108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
■
4. Add § 416.1437 to read as follows:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
§ 404.937 Protecting the safety of the
public and our employees in our hearing
process.
§ 416.1437 Protecting the safety of the
public and our employees in our hearing
process.
(a) Notwithstanding any other
provision in this part or part 422 of this
chapter, we are establishing the
procedures set out in this section to
ensure the safety of the public and our
employees in our hearing process.
(b)(1) At the request of any hearing
office employee, the Hearing Office
Chief Administrative Law Judge will
determine, after consultation with the
presiding administrative law judge,
whether a claimant or other individual
poses a reasonable threat to the safety of
our employees or other participants in
the hearing. The Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge will find that
a claimant or other individual poses a
reasonable threat to the safety of our
employees or other participants in the
hearing when he or she determines that
the individual has made a threat and
there is a reasonable likelihood that the
claimant or other individual could act
on the threat. In making a finding under
this paragraph, the Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge will consider
all relevant evidence, including any
information we have in the claimant’s
record and any information we have
regarding the claimant’s or other
individual’s past conduct.
(2) If the Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge determines
that the claimant or other individual
poses a reasonable threat to the safety of
our employees or other participants in
the hearing, the Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge will either:
(i) Require the presence of a security
guard at the hearing; or
(ii) Require that the hearing be
conducted by video teleconference or by
telephone.
(c) If we have banned a claimant from
any of our facilities, we will provide the
claimant with the opportunity for a
hearing that will be conducted by
telephone.
(a) Notwithstanding any other
provision in this part or part 422 of this
chapter, we are establishing the
procedures set out in this section to
ensure the safety of the public and our
employees in our hearing process.
(b)(1) At the request of any hearing
office employee, the Hearing Office
Chief Administrative Law Judge will
determine, after consultation with the
presiding administrative law judge,
whether a claimant or other individual
poses a reasonable threat to the safety of
our employees or other participants in
the hearing. The Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge will find that
a claimant or other individual poses a
reasonable threat to the safety of our
employees or other participants in the
hearing when he or she determines that
the individual has made a threat and
there is a reasonable likelihood that the
claimant or other individual could act
on the threat. In making a finding under
this paragraph, the Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge will consider
all relevant evidence, including any
information we have in the claimant’s
record and any information we have
regarding the claimant’s or other
individual’s past conduct.
(2) If the Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge determines
that the claimant or other individual
poses a reasonable threat to the safety of
our employees or other participants in
the hearing, the Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge will either:
(i) Require the presence of a security
guard at the hearing; or
(ii) Require that the hearing be
conducted by video teleconference or by
telephone.
(c) If we have banned a claimant from
any of our facilities, we will provide the
claimant with the opportunity for a
hearing that will be conducted by
telephone.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Mar 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(d) The actions of the Hearing Office
Chief Administrative Law Judge taken
under this section are final and not
subject to further review.
[FR Doc. 2011–5750 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 3
[Docket No. USCG–2009–0929]
RIN 1625–ZA29
Ninth Coast Guard District Sector
Realignment; Northern Lake Michigan
and Lake Huron
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final Rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This rule makes
nonsubstantive, technical changes to
Title 33 of the CFR to reflect the
realignment of boundaries shared
among Sector Lake Michigan, Sector
Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie.
This action is taken to rebalance
workload and span of control among
Ninth District sector commands. These
changes affect internal Coast Guard
organization and functioning only and
will have no substantive effect on
mariners or other members of the
public.
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective at
12:00:01 EDT on April 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket USCG–2009–
0929 and are available online by going
to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG–2009–0929 in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They
are also available for inspection or
copying at 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
e-mail Mr. Doug McCann, Ninth District
Resources Planning Branch, U.S. Coast
Guard, telephone 216–902–6008, e-mail
douglas.a.mccann@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM
14MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this final
rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to
authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the rule involves
‘‘agency organization’’ or when the
agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ‘‘impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the
Coast Guard finds that with respect to
this rule the requirement to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
does not apply because these changes
merely involve agency organization.
Also, the Coast Guard finds, under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that good cause exists
for not publishing an NPRM with
respect to this rule because it is
unnecessary. Comments are
unnecessary because they would not
change the Coast Guard’s internal
delegation of authority or duties among
the Ninth District’s sector commands
nor would they provide expertise
regarding Coast Guard functions.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register because these changes affect
internal Coast Guard organization and
functioning only and will have no
substantive effect on the public.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Background and Purpose
On July 2, 2007, in order to reflect the
establishment of the new system of
sector commands, the Coast Guard
extensively revised 33 CFR part 3. That
revision included various changes to the
Coast Guard’s internal organization to
include the reassignment of Station
Charlevoix and Station Alpena from
Group Sault Ste. Marie to Sectors Lake
Michigan and Detroit, respectively. That
reassignment was done in order to have
all units on Lake Michigan assigned to
one sector and all units on Lake Huron
assigned to another. The Coast Guard
has decided, however, to further adjust
sector boundaries to provide a more
balanced workload and span of control
among Ninth District sectors. An effect
of this boundary adjustment is that
Stations Charlevoix and Alpena will be
reassigned to Sector Sault Ste. Marie.
In addition to balancing workload and
span of control, this realignment will
also enhance planning and coordination
with our maritime partners.
Specifically, these changes will align
Ninth District sectors more closely with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Mar 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
Customs and Border Protection,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority,
and the Tri-County 911 Center servicing
Charlevoix, Cheboygan, and Emmet
counties. This alignment is expected to
improve cooperation, consistency, and
efficiency in maritime security, safety,
and environmental response. This rule
is not intended or expected to require
any new actions on the part of the
public.
Discussion of Rule
Generally, this rule expands Sector
Sault Ste. Marie’s Area of Responsibility
(AOR). Its new AOR will encompass
Grand Traverse Bay, other northern
portions of Lake Michigan, and
additional portions of northern Lake
Huron. To accomplish this realignment,
this rule amends 33 CFR 3.45–15, 3.45–
20, and 3.45–45, which define the
boundaries of Sector Lake Michigan,
Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste.
Marie respectively.
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. As this rule involves internal
agency organization and nonsubstantive changes, it will not impose
any costs on the public.
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. This
rule does not require a general notice of
proposed rulemaking and therefore, is
exempt from the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Although this rule is exempt, we have
reviewed this rule for potential
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13509
economic impacts on small entities. We
found that that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it
involves internal agency organization
and non-substantive changes.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or Tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this rule will not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
will not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM
14MRR1
13510
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
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 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a
category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Mar 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
environment. Therefore, this rule is
categorically excluded, under figure 2–
1, paragraph (34)(b), of the Instruction.
This rule concerns Coast Guard internal
functions and organization in that it
redefines certain sector boundaries. 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 3
Organization and functions
(Government agencies).
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 3 as follows:
PART 3—COAST GUARD AREAS,
DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE
INSPECTION ZONES, AND CAPTAIN
OF THE PORT ZONES
1. The authority citation for part 3
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 92; Pub. L. 107–296,
116 Stat. 2135; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23).
■
2. Revise § 3.45–15 to read as follows:
§ 3.45–15 Sector Lake Michigan Marine
Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port
Zone.
Sector Lake Michigan’s office is
located in Milwaukee, WI. The
boundaries of Sector Lake Michigan’s
Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of
the Port Zone include all navigable
waters of the United States and
contiguous land areas within the
boundaries of an area starting from a
point at latitude 44°43′00″ N, longitude
84°30′00″ W, proceeding due west to
longitude 85°40′00″ W; thence
northwest to the eastern shore of Lake
Michigan at latitude 45°01′00″ N; thence
northwest to latitude 45°22′30″ N,
longitude 86°19′00″ W; thence northeast
to latitude 45°41′00″ N, longitude
86°06′00″ W; thence northwest to
latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude
87°22′00″ W; thence west to latitude
46°20′00″ N, longitude 90°00′00″ W;
thence south to latitude 41°00′00″ N;
thence east to the Ohio-Indiana border
at latitude 41°00′00″ N, longitude
84°48′12″ W; thence north along the
Ohio-Indiana border to the intersection
of the Ohio-Indiana-Michigan border at
latitude 41°41′59″ N, longitude
84°48′22″ W; thence east along the
Ohio-Michigan border to latitude
41°42′13″ N, longitude 84°30′00″ W;
thence north to the start point.
■
3. Revise § 3.45–20 to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 3.45–20 Sector Detroit Marine Inspection
Zone and Captain of the Port Zone.
Sector Detroit’s office is located in
Detroit, MI. The boundaries of Sector
Detroit’s Marine Inspection Zone and
Captain of the Port Zone include all
navigable waters of the United States
and contiguous land areas within the
boundaries of an area starting from a
point at latitude 41°00′00″ N, longitude
84°48′12″ W on the Ohio-Indiana
boundary, proceeding east to longitude
82°25′00″ W; thence north to the
international boundary in Lake Erie at
latitude 41°40′36″ N, longitude
82°25′00″ W; thence north along the
international boundary to latitude
44°43′00″ N in Lake Huron; thence due
west to latitude 44°43′00″ N, longitude
84°30′00″ W; thence south to the
Michigan-Ohio boundary at latitude
41°42′13″ N; thence west along the
Michigan-Ohio boundary to the OhioMichigan-Indiana boundary at latitude
41°41′46″ N, longitude 84°48′22″ W;
thence south along the Ohio-Indiana
boundary to the starting point.
■ 4. Revise § 3.45–45 to read as follows:
§ 3.45–45 Sector Sault Ste. Marie Marine
Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port
Zone; Marine Safety Unit Duluth.
Sector Sault Ste. Marie’s office is
located in Sault Ste. Marie, MI. A
subordinate unit, Marine Safety Unit
(MSU) Duluth, is located in Duluth,
MN.
(a) Sector Sault Ste. Marie’s Marine
Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port
Zone comprise all navigable waters of
the United States and contiguous land
areas within an area starting from a
point at latitude 44°43′00″ N on the
international boundary within Lake
Huron; proceeding due west to
longitude 85°40′00″ W; thence
northwest to the eastern shore of Lake
Michigan at latitude 45°01′00″ N; thence
northwest to latitude 45°22′30″ N,
longitude 86°19′00″ W; thence northeast
to latitude 45°41′00″ N, longitude
86°06′00″ W; thence northwest to
latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude
87°22′00″ W; thence west to the
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at
latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude
96°36′30″ W; thence north along the
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to
the intersection of the Minnesota-North
Dakota boundary and the international
boundary at latitude 49°00′02″ N,
longitude 97°13′46″ W; thence east
along the international boundary to the
starting point; and in addition, all the
area described in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) The boundaries of the MSU Duluth
Marine Inspection and Captain of the
Port Zones comprise all navigable
E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM
14MRR1
13511
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
waters of the United States and
contiguous land areas within an area
starting at a point latitude 46°20′00″ N,
longitude 88°30′00″ W, proceeding west
to the Minnesota-North Dakota
boundary at latitude 46°20′00″ N,
longitude 96°36′30″ W; thence north
along the Minnesota-North Dakota
boundary to the intersection of the
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary and
the international boundary at latitude
49°00′02″ N, longitude 97°13′46″ W;
thence east along the international
boundary to a point at latitude 47°59′23″
N, longitude 87°35′10″ W; thence south
to a point near Manitou Island Light at
latitude 47°25′09″ N, longitude
87°35′10″ W; thence southwest to a
point near the shore of Lake Superior at
latitude 46°51′51″ N, longitude
87°45′00″ W; thence southwest to the
point of origin.
Dated: March 7, 2011.
Kathryn A. Sinniger,
Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011–5731 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0903; FRL–9278–7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Revisions to the Open Burning
Regulations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Virginia State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The revisions recodify the open
burning regulations which are currently
in the Virginia SIP. There are no
substantive changes to the rule. EPA is
approving these revisions to Virginia’s
open burning regulations in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective on May 13,
2011 without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse written comment by
April 13, 2011. If EPA receives such
comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2010–0903 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: frankford.harold@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0903,
Harold A. Frankford, Air Protection
Division, Mailcode 3AP00, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010–
0903. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
DATES:
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. Copies of the State submittals are
available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Harold A. Frankford, (215) 814–2108, or
by e-mail at frankford.harold@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. On September 27, 2010, the
Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
formal revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP
revision consists of the recodification of
its open burning regulations.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The recodification moves the
Commonwealth’s SIP-approved open
burning regulations from 9VAC5,
Chapter 140, Part II Article 40 to a new
9VAC5 Chapter 130, Part I. The
following table summarizes the current
and new Virginia Administrative Code
(VAC) citations for these regulations:
Current Virginia
SIP citation in
9VAC5 chapter
40, part II, article
40
Regulation title
Applicability ..................................................................................................................................................
Definitions ....................................................................................................................................................
Open Burning Prohibitions ...........................................................................................................................
Permissible Open Burning ...........................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Mar 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM
5–40–5600
5–40–5610
5–40–5620
5–40–5630
14MRR1
Revised Virginia
SIP citation in
9VAC5 chapter
130, part I
5–130–10
5–130–20
5–130–30
5–130–40
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13508-13511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5731]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 3
[Docket No. USCG-2009-0929]
RIN 1625-ZA29
Ninth Coast Guard District Sector Realignment; Northern Lake
Michigan and Lake Huron
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule makes nonsubstantive, technical changes to Title 33
of the CFR to reflect the realignment of boundaries shared among Sector
Lake Michigan, Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie. This action
is taken to rebalance workload and span of control among Ninth District
sector commands. These changes affect internal Coast Guard organization
and functioning only and will have no substantive effect on mariners or
other members of the public.
DATES: This final rule is effective at 12:00:01 EDT on April 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0929 and are available online
by going to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0929 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Doug McCann, Ninth District Resources Planning
Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 216-902-6008, e-mail
douglas.a.mccann@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 13509]]
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the rule involves ``agency organization''
or when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that with respect to
this rule the requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) does not apply because these changes merely involve agency
organization. Also, the Coast Guard finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this
rule because it is unnecessary. Comments are unnecessary because they
would not change the Coast Guard's internal delegation of authority or
duties among the Ninth District's sector commands nor would they
provide expertise regarding Coast Guard functions.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because these changes affect
internal Coast Guard organization and functioning only and will have no
substantive effect on the public.
Background and Purpose
On July 2, 2007, in order to reflect the establishment of the new
system of sector commands, the Coast Guard extensively revised 33 CFR
part 3. That revision included various changes to the Coast Guard's
internal organization to include the reassignment of Station Charlevoix
and Station Alpena from Group Sault Ste. Marie to Sectors Lake Michigan
and Detroit, respectively. That reassignment was done in order to have
all units on Lake Michigan assigned to one sector and all units on Lake
Huron assigned to another. The Coast Guard has decided, however, to
further adjust sector boundaries to provide a more balanced workload
and span of control among Ninth District sectors. An effect of this
boundary adjustment is that Stations Charlevoix and Alpena will be
reassigned to Sector Sault Ste. Marie.
In addition to balancing workload and span of control, this
realignment will also enhance planning and coordination with our
maritime partners. Specifically, these changes will align Ninth
District sectors more closely with Customs and Border Protection,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency,
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, and the Tri-County 911 Center
servicing Charlevoix, Cheboygan, and Emmet counties. This alignment is
expected to improve cooperation, consistency, and efficiency in
maritime security, safety, and environmental response. This rule is not
intended or expected to require any new actions on the part of the
public.
Discussion of Rule
Generally, this rule expands Sector Sault Ste. Marie's Area of
Responsibility (AOR). Its new AOR will encompass Grand Traverse Bay,
other northern portions of Lake Michigan, and additional portions of
northern Lake Huron. To accomplish this realignment, this rule amends
33 CFR 3.45-15, 3.45-20, and 3.45-45, which define the boundaries of
Sector Lake Michigan, Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie
respectively.
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. As this rule involves internal agency
organization and non-substantive changes, it will not impose any costs
on the public.
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.
This rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and
therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed this rule for
potential economic impacts on small entities. We found that that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it
involves internal agency organization and non-substantive changes.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
[[Page 13510]]
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 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(b), of the Instruction. This rule concerns Coast Guard
internal functions and organization in that it redefines certain sector
boundaries. 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 3
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 3 as follows:
PART 3--COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE INSPECTION
ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES
0
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 92; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23).
0
2. Revise Sec. 3.45-15 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.45-15 Sector Lake Michigan Marine Inspection Zone and Captain
of the Port Zone.
Sector Lake Michigan's office is located in Milwaukee, WI. The
boundaries of Sector Lake Michigan's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain
of the Port Zone include all navigable waters of the United States and
contiguous land areas within the boundaries of an area starting from a
point at latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]30'00'' W,
proceeding due west to longitude 85[deg]40'00'' W; thence northwest to
the eastern shore of Lake Michigan at latitude 45[deg]01'00'' N; thence
northwest to latitude 45[deg]22'30'' N, longitude 86[deg]19'00'' W;
thence northeast to latitude 45[deg]41'00'' N, longitude 86[deg]06'00''
W; thence northwest to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude
87[deg]22'00'' W; thence west to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude
90[deg]00'00'' W; thence south to latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N; thence
east to the Ohio-Indiana border at latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N, longitude
84[deg]48'12'' W; thence north along the Ohio-Indiana border to the
intersection of the Ohio-Indiana-Michigan border at latitude
41[deg]41'59'' N, longitude 84[deg]48'22'' W; thence east along the
Ohio-Michigan border to latitude 41[deg]42'13'' N, longitude
84[deg]30'00'' W; thence north to the start point.
0
3. Revise Sec. 3.45-20 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.45-20 Sector Detroit Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the
Port Zone.
Sector Detroit's office is located in Detroit, MI. The boundaries
of Sector Detroit's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone
include all navigable waters of the United States and contiguous land
areas within the boundaries of an area starting from a point at
latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]48'12'' W on the Ohio-
Indiana boundary, proceeding east to longitude 82[deg]25'00'' W; thence
north to the international boundary in Lake Erie at latitude
41[deg]40'36'' N, longitude 82[deg]25'00'' W; thence north along the
international boundary to latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N in Lake Huron;
thence due west to latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]30'00''
W; thence south to the Michigan-Ohio boundary at latitude
41[deg]42'13'' N; thence west along the Michigan-Ohio boundary to the
Ohio-Michigan-Indiana boundary at latitude 41[deg]41'46'' N, longitude
84[deg]48'22'' W; thence south along the Ohio-Indiana boundary to the
starting point.
0
4. Revise Sec. 3.45-45 to read as follows:
Sec. 3.45-45 Sector Sault Ste. Marie Marine Inspection Zone and
Captain of the Port Zone; Marine Safety Unit Duluth.
Sector Sault Ste. Marie's office is located in Sault Ste. Marie,
MI. A subordinate unit, Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Duluth, is located in
Duluth, MN.
(a) Sector Sault Ste. Marie's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of
the Port Zone comprise all navigable waters of the United States and
contiguous land areas within an area starting from a point at latitude
44[deg]43'00'' N on the international boundary within Lake Huron;
proceeding due west to longitude 85[deg]40'00'' W; thence northwest to
the eastern shore of Lake Michigan at latitude 45[deg]01'00'' N; thence
northwest to latitude 45[deg]22'30'' N, longitude 86[deg]19'00'' W;
thence northeast to latitude 45[deg]41'00'' N, longitude 86[deg]06'00''
W; thence northwest to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude
87[deg]22'00'' W; thence west to the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at
latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 96[deg]36'30'' W; thence north
along the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to the intersection of the
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary and the international boundary at
latitude 49[deg]00'02'' N, longitude 97[deg]13'46'' W; thence east
along the international boundary to the starting point; and in
addition, all the area described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The boundaries of the MSU Duluth Marine Inspection and Captain
of the Port Zones comprise all navigable
[[Page 13511]]
waters of the United States and contiguous land areas within an area
starting at a point latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 88[deg]30'00''
W, proceeding west to the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at latitude
46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 96[deg]36'30'' W; thence north along the
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to the intersection of the Minnesota-
North Dakota boundary and the international boundary at latitude
49[deg]00'02'' N, longitude 97[deg]13'46'' W; thence east along the
international boundary to a point at latitude 47[deg]59'23'' N,
longitude 87[deg]35'10'' W; thence south to a point near Manitou Island
Light at latitude 47[deg]25'09'' N, longitude 87[deg]35'10'' W; thence
southwest to a point near the shore of Lake Superior at latitude
46[deg]51'51'' N, longitude 87[deg]45'00'' W; thence southwest to the
point of origin.
Dated: March 7, 2011.
Kathryn A. Sinniger,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States
Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-5731 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
