Security Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Approaches to Ocean City, MD, 14389-14392 [2021-05391]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
injury criterion (HIC) unlimited score in
excess of 1000 is acceptable, provided
the HIC15 score (calculated in
accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) for
that contact is less than 700.
b. Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact
If a seat is installed aft of structure
(e.g., an interior wall or furnishing) that
does not provide a homogenous contact
surface for the expected range of
occupants and yaw angles, then
additional analysis or tests may be
required to demonstrate that the injury
criteria are met for the area that an
occupant could contact. For example, if
different yaw angles could result in
different airbag performance, then
additional analysis or separate tests may
be necessary to evaluate performance.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
c. Neck-Injury Criteria
The seating system must protect the
occupant from experiencing serious
neck injury. The assessment of neck
injury must be conducted with the
airbag device activated, unless there is
reason to also consider that the neckinjury potential would be higher for
impacts below the airbag-device
deployment threshold.
(1) The Nij (calculated in accordance
with 49 CFR 571.208) must be below
1.0, where Nij = Fz/Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:
(a) Fzc = 1,530 lb for tension
(b) Fzc = 1,385 lb for compression
(c) Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
(d) Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension
(2) In addition, peak Fz must be below
937 lb in tension and 899 lb in
compression.
(3) Rotation of the head about its
vertical axis, relative to the torso, is
limited to 105 degrees in either
direction from forward-facing.
(4) The neck must not impact any
surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.
d. ATD and Test Conditions
Longitudinal tests conducted to
measure the injury criteria above must
be performed with the FAA Hybrid III
ATD, as described in SAE 1999–01–
1609, ‘‘A Lumbar Spine Modification to
the Hybrid III ATD for Aircraft Seat
Tests.’’ The tests must be conducted
with an undeformed floor, at the mostcritical yaw cases for injury, and with
all lateral structural supports (e.g.
armrests or walls) installed.
Note: Applicant must demonstrate
that the installation of seats via plinths
or pallets meets all applicable
requirements. Compliance with the
guidance contained in policy
memorandum PS–ANM–100–2000–
00123, ‘‘Guidance for Demonstrating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Mar 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
Compliance with Seat Dynamic Testing
for Plinths and Pallets,’’ dated February
2, 2000, is acceptable to the FAA.
2. The structure-mounted airbag must
provide adequate protection for each
occupant regardless of the number of
occupants of the seat assembly.
3. The structure-mounted airbag
system must not be susceptible to
inadvertent deployment as a result of
wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting
from in-flight or ground maneuvers
(including gusts and hard landings)
likely to be experienced in service.
4. The applicant must demonstrate
that an inadvertent deployment that
could cause injury to a standing or
sitting person is improbable. Inadvertent
deployment must not cause injury to
anyone who may be positioned close to
the structure-mounted airbag (e.g.,
seated in an adjacent seat, or standing
adjacent to the airbag installation or the
subject seat). Cases where a structuremounted airbag is inadvertently
deployed near a seated occupant or an
empty seat must be considered.
5. Inadvertent deployment of the
structure-mounted airbag during the
most critical part of flight will either not
cause a hazard to the airplane or is
extremely improbable.
6. Deployment of the structuremounted airbag must not introduce
hazards or injury mechanisms to the
seated occupant, including occupants in
the brace position. Deployment of the
structure-mounted airbag must also not
result in injuries that could impede
rapid exit from the airplane.
7. Effects of the deflection and
deformation of the structure to which
the airbag is attached must be taken into
account when evaluating deployment
and location of the inflated airbag. The
effect of loads imposed by airbag
deployment, or stowed components
where applicable, must also be taken
into account.
8. The applicant must demonstrate
that the structure-mounted airbag, when
deployed, does not impair access to the
seatbelt- or harness-release means, and
must not hinder evacuation. This will
include consideration of adjacent seat
places and the aisle.
9. The airbag, once deployed, must
not adversely affect the emergencylighting system, and must not block
escape-path lighting to the extent that
the light(s) no longer meet their
intended function.
10. The structure-mounted airbag
must not impede occupants’ rapid exit
from the airplane 10 seconds after its
deployment.
11. Where structure-mounted airbag
systems are installed in or close to
passenger evacuation routes (other than
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14389
for the passenger seat for which the
airbag is installed), possibility of impact
on emergency evacuation (e.g., hanging
in the aisle, potential trip hazard, etc.)
must be evaluated.
12. The airbag electronic system must
be designed to be protected from
lightning per § 25.1316(b), and highintensity radiated fields per
§ 25.1317(c).
13. The structure-mounted airbag
system must not contain or release
hazardous quantities of gas or
particulate matter into the cabin.
14. The structure-mounted airbag
installation must be protected from the
effects of fire such that no hazard to
occupants will result.
15. The inflatable bag material must
meet the 2.5-inches-per-minute
horizontal flammability test defined in
14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part I,
paragraph (a)(1)(iv).
16. The design of the structuremounted airbag system must protect the
mechanisms and controls from external
contamination associated with that
which could occur on or around
passenger seating.
17. The structure-mounted airbag
system must have a means to verify the
integrity of the structure-mounted airbag
activation system.
18. The applicant must provide
installation limitations to ensure
installation compatibility between the
seat design and opposing monument or
structure.
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on March 10,
2021.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–05331 Filed 3–15–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2021–0115]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; North Atlantic Ocean,
Approaches to Ocean City, MD
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a temporary security zone
encompassing certain waters of the
North Atlantic Ocean. The security zone
is necessary to prevent waterside threats
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
14390
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
before, during and after National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
equipment testing conducted offshore
near Ocean City, MD, from April 25,
2021, through May 8, 2021. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Maryland-National Capital Region or his
designated representative. We invite
your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before April 15, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2021–0115 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
DATES:
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email LCDR Samuel
M. Danus, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; 410–576–
2519, Samuel.M.Danus@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
On February 17, 2021, the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
notified the Coast Guard that it will be
conducting U.S. Government training
and systems testing from 9 a.m. on April
25, 2021, through 10 p.m. on May 8,
2021. The training and testing will take
place in two locations offshore of Ocean
City, MD. The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region has determined that a
security zone is needed for waterborne
protection of the public, mitigation of
potential terrorist acts, and the
enhancing of public and maritime safety
and security in order to safeguard life,
property, and the environment on or
near the navigable waters near Ocean
City, MD.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the security of vessels and
government equipment involved in this
event by prohibiting vessels from
entering the security zone. If a person or
vessel has been granted permission to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Mar 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
enter the zone, they must not enter
waters within 1,000 yards of the on
scene Coast Guard vessel or test
equipment being used by Coast Guard
personnel. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously
33 U.S.C. 1232).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP is proposing to establish a
security zone from 9 a.m. on April 25,
2021, through 10 p.m. on May 8, 2021.
The security zone will be enforced from
9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on April 25, 2021, and
those same hours on April 26, 2021,
April 27, 2021, April 28, 2021, April 29,
2021, April 30, 2021, May 1, 2021, May
2, 2021, May 3, 2021, May 4, 2021, May
5, 2021, May 6, 2021, May 7, 2021 and
May 8, 2021. The security zone will
cover all waters of the North Atlantic
Ocean, from surface to bottom,
encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 38°23′56″
N, 074°48′06″ W, thence south to
38°21′40″ N, 074°48′33″ W, thence south
to 38°17′54″ N, 074°49′57″ W, thence
southwest to 38°15′04″ N, 074°51′44″ W,
thence northwest to 38°18′52″ N,
074°54′24″ W, thence north to 38°22′55″
N, 074°52′44″ W, and northeast back to
the beginning point. The zone is
approximately 9.3 nautical miles in
length and 3.6 nautical miles in width.
If a person or vessel has been granted
permission to enter the zone, they must
not enter waters within 1,000 yards of
the on scene Coast Guard vessel or test
equipment being used by Coast Guard
personnel.
The duration of the rule and
enforcement of the zone is intended to
protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in these navigable
waters while the Coast Guard vessel and
test equipment are being used. All
vessels and persons must obtain
permission from the COTP MarylandNational Capital Region or his
designated representative before
entering the security zone. Equipment
testing operations may occur anywhere
within the security zone during the
enforcement periods. Vessels and
persons will not be permitted to enter
the security zone within 1,000 yards of
the Coast Guard vessel or test
equipment. While this 1,000 yards area
lies within the security zone, its exact
location within the security zone may
change. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this
document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
This NPRM has not been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the NPRM has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
This regulatory action determination
is based on location and duration of the
security zone. This security zone will be
enforced 182 hours over the course of a
two week period. Vessels will be able to
safely transit around the security zone,
which impacts a small area of the North
Atlantic Ocean, where vessel traffic is
normally low. Additionally, the Coast
Guard will make notifications to the
maritime community via marine
information broadcasts. The Coast
Guard will update such notifications as
necessary to keep the maritime
community informed of the status of the
security zone.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to consider
the potential impact of regulations on
small entities during rulemaking. The
term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the security
zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above,
this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this 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.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule. If the
rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about
this proposed rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for
a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would 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.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please call or email the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Mar 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1,
associated implementing instructions,
and Environmental Planning
COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which
guide the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
rule involves a security zone lasting
only 182 total enforcement hours that
will prohibit entry within a small
portion of the North Atlantic Ocean.
Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table
1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–
001–01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions
on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, call or email the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14391
We accept anonymous comments.
Comments we post to https://
www.regulations.gov will include any
personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. We review all
comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of
the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or
duplicate comments that we receive. If
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing
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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05–0115 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T05–0115 Security Zone; North
Atlantic Ocean, Approaches to Ocean City,
MD.
(a) Location. The following is a
security zone: All waters of the North
Atlantic Ocean, from surface to bottom,
encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 38°23′56″
N, 074°48′06″ W, thence south to
38°21′40″ N, 074°48′33″ W, thence south
to 38°17′54″ N, 074°49′57″ W, thence
southwest to 38°15′04″ N, 074°51′44″ W,
thence northwest to 38°18′52″ N,
074°54′24″ W, thence north to 38°22′55″
N, 074°52′44″ W, and northeast back to
the beginning point. All coordinates are
based on datum NAD 83.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section—
Captain of the Port (COTP) means the
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Maryland-National Capital Region.
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
14392
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Designated representative means the
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer operating the on scene
Coast Guard vessel designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port
Maryland-National Capital Region
(COTP) in the enforcement of the
security zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general
security zone regulations in subpart D of
this part, you may not enter the security
zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the COTP
or the COTP’s designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter the
security zone described in paragraph (a)
of this section, contact the COTP or the
COTP’s representative by telephone at
410–576–2693 or on Marine Band Radio
VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The
Coast Guard vessel enforcing this
section can be contacted on Marine
Band Radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Those in the security zone must
comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or
the COTP’s designated representative.
(3) A person or vessel operating in the
security zone described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section must not enter
waters within 1,000 yards of the on
scene Coast Guard vessel or test
equipment being used by Coast Guard
personnel.
(d) Enforcement periods. This section
will be enforced 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on
April 25, 2021, and those same hours on
April 26, 2021, April 27, 2021, April 28,
2021, April 29, 2021, April 30, 2021,
May 1, 2021, May 2, 2021, May 3, 2021,
May 4, 2021, May 5, 2021, May 6, 2021,
May 7, 2021 and May 8, 2021.
Dated: March 9, 2021.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021–05391 Filed 3–15–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 49 and 52
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0018; FRL–10020–
02–Region 9]
Rescission of the Source-Specific
Federal Implementation Plan for
Navajo Generating Station, Navajo
Nation
Table of Contents
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to rescind
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Mar 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
the federal implementation plan (FIP)
that regulates emissions from the Navajo
Generating Station (NGS), a coal-fired
power plant that was located on the
reservation lands of the Navajo Nation
near Page, Arizona. NGS permanently
ceased operations on November 18,
2019, and the Clean Air Act (CAA or
‘‘Act’’) operating permit for this facility
has expired.
DATES: Any comments on this proposal
must arrive by April 15, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID number EPA–
R09–OAR–2021–0018, at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, or if
you need assistance in a language other
than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3958, lee.anita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
I. Background
A. Action
B. Facility
C. Attainment Status
D. The EPA’s Authority To Promulgate a
FIP in Indian Country
E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP Actions
II. Basis for Proposed Action
III. Solicitation of Comments
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Background
A. Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
rescind the FIP for NGS that we
promulgated on October 3, 1991 (‘‘1991
FIP’’), March 5, 2010 (‘‘2010 FIP’’), and
August 8, 2014 (‘‘2014 FIP’’).1 The
provisions of the 1991 action are
codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 52.145(d),
the provisions of the 2010 action are
codified at 40 CFR 49.5513(a) through
(i), and provisions of the 2014 action are
codified at 40 CFR 49.5513(j). We refer
collectively to the provisions from the
1991, 2010, and 2014 actions as the
‘‘FIP’’ or the ‘‘NGS FIP.’’ The NGS FIP
includes federally enforceable emissions
limitations that apply to the fossil fuelfired steam generating equipment,
designated as Units 1, 2, and 3,
equipment associated with the coal and
ash handling, and the two auxiliary
steam boilers at NGS. These emissions
limitations apply to emissions of
particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and
opacity. The EPA is proposing to
rescind the NGS FIP and remove the
provisions of the FIP from 40 CFR
52.145(d) and 40 CFR 49.5513.
B. Facility
NGS was a coal-fired power plant that
ceased operation in 2019, located on the
reservation lands of the Navajo Nation,
just east of Page, Arizona, and
approximately 135 miles north of
Flagstaff. NGS was co-owned by several
entities and operated by Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and
Power District (‘‘SRP’’).2 The facility
operated three units, each with a
capacity of 750 megawatts (MW) net
generation, with a total capacity of 2250
MW. Operations at the facility produced
air pollutant emissions, including
emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM.
Existing pollution control equipment at
NGS included wet flue gas
desulfurization units for SO2 and PM
removal, electrostatic precipitators for
PM removal, and low-NOX burners with
separated over-fire air to reduce NOX
formation during the combustion
process. Had the facility not ceased
operations, the owner or operator of
NGS would have taken steps by
December 31, 2019 to reduce emissions
1 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991), 75 FR 10174
(March 5, 2010), and 79 FR 46552 (August 8, 2014).
2 The original participants in NGS were the
United States Bureau of Reclamation, SRP, Arizona
Public Service Company, Tucson Electric Company,
NV Energy, and the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LADWP). SRP, serves as the
facility operator. Prior to the permanent closure of
NGS, SRP acquired the LADWP participant share in
NGS.
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14389-14392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05391]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2021-0115]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Approaches to Ocean City, MD
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary security
zone encompassing certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. The
security zone is necessary to prevent waterside threats
[[Page 14390]]
before, during and after National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
equipment testing conducted offshore near Ocean City, MD, from April
25, 2021, through May 8, 2021. Entry of vessels or persons into this
zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region or his designated representative.
We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 15, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0115 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Samuel M. Danus, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; 410-576-2519,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On February 17, 2021, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(NGA) notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting U.S.
Government training and systems testing from 9 a.m. on April 25, 2021,
through 10 p.m. on May 8, 2021. The training and testing will take
place in two locations offshore of Ocean City, MD. The COTP Maryland-
National Capital Region has determined that a security zone is needed
for waterborne protection of the public, mitigation of potential
terrorist acts, and the enhancing of public and maritime safety and
security in order to safeguard life, property, and the environment on
or near the navigable waters near Ocean City, MD.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the security of vessels
and government equipment involved in this event by prohibiting vessels
from entering the security zone. If a person or vessel has been granted
permission to enter the zone, they must not enter waters within 1,000
yards of the on scene Coast Guard vessel or test equipment being used
by Coast Guard personnel. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking
under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1232).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP is proposing to establish a security zone from 9 a.m. on
April 25, 2021, through 10 p.m. on May 8, 2021. The security zone will
be enforced from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on April 25, 2021, and those same
hours on April 26, 2021, April 27, 2021, April 28, 2021, April 29,
2021, April 30, 2021, May 1, 2021, May 2, 2021, May 3, 2021, May 4,
2021, May 5, 2021, May 6, 2021, May 7, 2021 and May 8, 2021. The
security zone will cover all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, from
surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting the following
points beginning at 38[deg]23'56'' N, 074[deg]48'06'' W, thence south
to 38[deg]21'40'' N, 074[deg]48'33'' W, thence south to 38[deg]17'54''
N, 074[deg]49'57'' W, thence southwest to 38[deg]15'04'' N,
074[deg]51'44'' W, thence northwest to 38[deg]18'52'' N,
074[deg]54'24'' W, thence north to 38[deg]22'55'' N, 074[deg]52'44'' W,
and northeast back to the beginning point. The zone is approximately
9.3 nautical miles in length and 3.6 nautical miles in width. If a
person or vessel has been granted permission to enter the zone, they
must not enter waters within 1,000 yards of the on scene Coast Guard
vessel or test equipment being used by Coast Guard personnel.
The duration of the rule and enforcement of the zone is intended to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these
navigable waters while the Coast Guard vessel and test equipment are
being used. All vessels and persons must obtain permission from the
COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or his designated representative
before entering the security zone. Equipment testing operations may
occur anywhere within the security zone during the enforcement periods.
Vessels and persons will not be permitted to enter the security zone
within 1,000 yards of the Coast Guard vessel or test equipment. While
this 1,000 yards area lies within the security zone, its exact location
within the security zone may change. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on location and
duration of the security zone. This security zone will be enforced 182
hours over the course of a two week period. Vessels will be able to
safely transit around the security zone, which impacts a small area of
the North Atlantic Ocean, where vessel traffic is normally low.
Additionally, the Coast Guard will make notifications to the maritime
community via marine information broadcasts. The Coast Guard will
update such notifications as necessary to keep the maritime community
informed of the status of the security zone.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
[[Page 14391]]
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a security
zone lasting only 182 total enforcement hours that will prohibit entry
within a small portion of the North Atlantic Ocean. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive. If you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts,
you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is
published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.T05-0115 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T05-0115 Security Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Approaches to
Ocean City, MD.
(a) Location. The following is a security zone: All waters of the
North Atlantic Ocean, from surface to bottom, encompassed by a line
connecting the following points beginning at 38[deg]23'56'' N,
074[deg]48'06'' W, thence south to 38[deg]21'40'' N, 074[deg]48'33'' W,
thence south to 38[deg]17'54'' N, 074[deg]49'57'' W, thence southwest
to 38[deg]15'04'' N, 074[deg]51'44'' W, thence northwest to
38[deg]18'52'' N, 074[deg]54'24'' W, thence north to 38[deg]22'55'' N,
074[deg]52'44'' W, and northeast back to the beginning point. All
coordinates are based on datum NAD 83.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section--
Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
[[Page 14392]]
Designated representative means the Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer operating the on scene Coast Guard vessel
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the security zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone at 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessel enforcing this
section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
(3) A person or vessel operating in the security zone described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section must not enter waters within 1,000
yards of the on scene Coast Guard vessel or test equipment being used
by Coast Guard personnel.
(d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced 9 a.m. to 10
p.m. on April 25, 2021, and those same hours on April 26, 2021, April
27, 2021, April 28, 2021, April 29, 2021, April 30, 2021, May 1, 2021,
May 2, 2021, May 3, 2021, May 4, 2021, May 5, 2021, May 6, 2021, May 7,
2021 and May 8, 2021.
Dated: March 9, 2021.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-05391 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
