Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72655 

FAA–2010–0829; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NE–23–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) 

becomes effective January 3, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney 

Canada Corp. (P&WC) PW305A and PW305B 

turboprop engines with certain impellers, 

part numbers (P/Ns) 30B2185, 30B2486, 

30B2858–01, or 30B4565–01 installed. These 

engines are installed on, but not limited to, 

Hawker-Beech Corporation BAe.125 series 

1000A, 1000B, and Hawker 1000 airplanes 

and Learjet Inc. Learjet 60 airplanes. 

Reason 

(d) This AD results from: 

As a result of a change in the low-cycle 

fatigue lifing methodology for the IMI 834 

material, the recommended service life of 

certain PW305A and PW305B Impellers has 

been reduced, as published in the 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) section of 

Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM). 

The in-service life of impellers P/N 

30B2185, 30B2486 and 30B2858–01 has been 

reduced from 12,000 to 7,000 cycles; and of 

P/N 30B4565–01 from 8,500 to 7,000 cycles. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure 

of the impeller, which could result in an 

uncontained event and possible damage to 

the airplane. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(f) Within 30 days from the effective date 

of this AD, update AWL section of your 

PW305 EMM P/N 30B1402, to incorporate 

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Temporary 

Revision (TR) AL–8, dated January 20, 2010, 

for compliance with the revised in-service 

limits for the affected Impellers, installed on 

PW305A and PW305B engine. 

FAA AD Differences 

(g) None. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(h) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(j) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2010–09, dated 

March 17, 2010, for related information. 

(k) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov; 

phone: (781) 238–7176; fax: (781) 238–7199, 

for more information about this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(l) You must use Pratt & Whitney Canada 

Corp. Temporary Revision No. AL–8, dated 

January 20, 2010, to P&WC EMM P/N 

30B1402 to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada 

Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, 

Quebec, Canada J4G 1A1; telephone (800) 

268–8000; fax (450) 647–2888; or go to: 

http://www.pwc.ca. 

(3) You may review copies at the FAA, 

New England Region, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

(202) 741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

November 10, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29599 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 090122044–0403–02] 

RIN 0648–AX58 

Marine Sanitation Device Discharge 

Regulations for the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), Department of Commerce 

(DOC). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NOAA is amending the 

regulations for the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS or 

sanctuary) by eliminating the exemption 

that allows discharges from within the 

boundary of the sanctuary of 

biodegradable effluent incidental to 

vessel use and generated by marine 

sanitation devices (MSDs) approved 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and 

by requiring that MSDs be secured to 

prevent discharges of treated and 

untreated sewage. This action builds 

upon the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s creation of a No Discharge 

Zone (NDZ) for the state waters of the 

FKNMS, and will help protect the 

Florida Keys ecosystem from potentially 

harmful vessel sewage discharges. An 

environmental assessment has been 

prepared for this action pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The 

environmental assessment includes a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) regarding the impacts of this 

rulemaking. 

DATES: These regulations are effective 

on December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the 

environmental assessment, which 

includes the FONSI, described in this 

rule is available upon request to Sean 

Morton, Sanctuary Superintendent, 

Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Road, Key 

West, Florida 33040. It is also available 

for viewing and download at http:// 

floridakeys.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Morton, Sanctuary 

Superintendent, Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Road, 

Key West, Florida 33040. Phone: 305– 

809–4700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This Federal Register document is 

also accessible via the Internet at 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ 

index.html. 

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to 

designate and protect as national marine 

sanctuaries areas of the marine 

environment with special national 

significance due to their conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, 

scientific, cultural, archeological, 

educational, or esthetic qualities. 

Management of national marine 

sanctuaries has been delegated by the 

Secretary of Commerce to NOAA’s 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 

The primary objective of the NMSA is 

to protect marine resources, such as 

coral reefs, sunken historical vessels, or 

unique habitats. 

The FKNMS was designated by 

Congress in 1990 through the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Protection Act (FKNMSPA, Pub. L. 101– 

605) and extends approximately 220 

nautical miles southwest from the 

southern tip of the Florida peninsula. 

The sanctuary’s marine ecosystem 

supports over 6,000 species of plants, 

fishes and invertebrates, including the 

Nation’s only living coral reef that lies 

adjacent to the continent. The area 

includes one of the largest seagrass 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

communities in this hemisphere. The 

primary goal of the sanctuary is to 

protect the marine resources of the 

Florida Keys. 

Other goals of the sanctuary include 

facilitating human uses that are 

consistent with the primary objective of 

resource protection, as well as educating 

the public about the Florida Keys 

marine environment. Attracted by this 

subtropical diversity, tourists spend 

more than thirteen million visitor days 

in the Florida Keys each year. In 

addition, the region’s natural and manmade resources provide recreation and 

livelihoods for approximately 80,000 

residents. The region also has some of 

the most significant maritime heritage 

and historical resources of any coastal 

community in the nation. 

NOAA issued final regulations and a 

final management plan in 1997 for the 

FKNMS (62 FR 32161; June 12, 1997). 

Those regulations were designed to 

protect the fragile and nationally 

significant marine resources of the 

Florida Keys ecosystem. In doing so, 

these regulations established a series of 

fully protected marine zones, managed 

certain human activities, and 

established a permitting system for 

allowing some activities that would 

otherwise be prohibited. Sanctuarywide prohibitions include restrictions 

on discharges into the sanctuary, 

disturbing the seafloor of the sanctuary, 

and taking certain marine species. 

FKNMS regulations currently include 

a prohibition on discharging or 

depositing materials or other matter 

within the boundary of the sanctuary 

(15 CFR 922.163(a)(4)). Exceptions 

include discharging or depositing: (1) 

Fish, fish parts, chumming materials, or 

bait during traditional fishing 

operations in the sanctuary; (2) vessel 

cooling water or engine exhaust; (3) 

water generated by routine vessel 

operations (e.g., deck wash and 

graywater), excluding oily wastes from 

bilge pumping; and (4) biodegradable 

effluent from approved MSDs incidental 

to vessel use. In certain protected zones, 

including Ecological Reserves, 

Sanctuary Preservation Areas and 

Research-only Areas, only discharges of 

engine exhaust and cooling water are 

allowed. The State of Florida, local 

municipalities (e.g., City of Key West, 

City of Marathon), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), National Park 

Service and U.S. Coast Guard also 

regulate MSDs and vessel discharges 

within the Florida Keys region. In 

addition, several private, state, local and 

Federal entities provide or support 

numerous pump-out stations throughout 

the Florida Keys to assist vessel 

operators in complying with these 

regulations. 

Section 312 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 

1322 et seq.) gives the EPA and the 

states the authority to designate NDZs in 

state waters. An NDZ is an area of a 

waterbody or an entire waterbody into 

which the discharge of treated and 

untreated sewage from all vessels is 

completely prohibited. NDZs provide an 

additional management tool to address 

water quality issues associated with 

sewage contamination. 

II. Historical Context 

Several past actions have been taken 

at both the Federal and state levels to 

address longstanding water quality 

concerns in the Florida Keys. Under 

state law, all counties and 

municipalities throughout the State of 

Florida are required to develop and 

adopt a comprehensive plan that 

addresses ‘‘principles, guidelines, and 

standards for the orderly and balanced 

future economic, social, physical, 

environmental, and fiscal development 

of the area’’ (Florida Statutes Section 

163.3177). In response, the Monroe 

County Comprehensive Plan includes 

several objectives geared toward 

improving and protecting water quality 

from vessel discharges. In 1999, the 

Board of County Commissioners of 

Monroe County adopted a resolution 

requesting that the Governor of the State 

of Florida petition the EPA to declare all 

state waters within the boundaries of 

the FKNMS to be a NDZ for all vessels. 

Monroe County believed that this action 

would be a major step in protecting 

water quality around the Florida Keys 

and especially those areas where there 

is a high concentration of vessels. The 

Governor of the State of Florida 

supported Monroe County’s decision 

and in December 2000 submitted the 

county’s request to EPA Region 4, 

asking EPA to designate all state waters 

within the boundary of the FKNMS as 

a NDZ under the authority of section 

312(f)(4)(a) of the CWA. 

In 2001, the EPA issued a proposed 

rule to designate the state waters of the 

FKNMS an NDZ pursuant to section 

312(f)(4)(a) of the CWA (66 FR 38967; 

July 26, 2001). A 90-day public 

comment period followed (ending 

October 26, 2001), during which time 

EPA received 1,050 comments. There 

was overwhelming support for 

establishing the NDZ. The EPA’s final 

rule (effective June 19, 2002) prohibits 

all sewage discharges from vessels in 

state waters of the FKNMS (67 FR 

35735; May 21, 2002). 

Both the resolution passed by the 

Board of County Commissioners of 

Monroe County and a resolution passed 

by the FKNMS Water Quality Protection 

Program Steering Committee on October 

27, 1999, requested that NOAA establish 

regulations for no discharge from MSDs 

for the entire sanctuary. This was 

necessary because the EPA’s action 

under the CWA was limited to state 

waters of the FKNMS. The EPA’s final 

rule also recognized NOAA’s intention 

to expand the prohibition on sewage 

discharges from vessels into the Federal 

waters of the sanctuary. 

In December 2007, NOAA issued a 

revised management plan for the 

FKNMS that included a water quality 

action plan and regulatory action plan. 

The revised management plan is the 

culmination of an extensive public 

process. The strategies in the water 

quality action plan address sources of 

pollution, priority corrective actions 

and compliance schedules. The 

strategies seek to maintain and improve 

the balance between the indigenous 

population of corals, shellfish, fish and 

wildlife, and the recreation in and on 

the water. In particular, water quality 

Strategy L.1 identified the need to 

eliminate the discharge of wastewater, 

whether treated or not, from all vessels 

into sanctuary waters. The regulatory 

action plan identified the establishment 

of sanctuary-wide prohibitions on 

sewage discharge as a management 

priority. 

On November 16, 2009, NOAA 

published a proposed rule (74 FR 

58923) for this action and requested 

comments. NOAA’s responses to the 

comments received during the 

subsequent public comment period are 

in Section V of the preamble in this 

final rule. 

III. Summary of Rulemaking 

This rulemaking eliminates the 

exemption that allows discharges of 

biodegradable effluent incidental to 

vessel use and generated by MSDs 

approved under the CWA. It also adds 

a new requirement that MSDs be 

secured in a manner that prevents 

discharges or deposits of treated and 

untreated sewage while within the 

boundaries of the FKNMS. Although the 

FKNMS regulations, as revised by this 

action, do not specify precisely how 

vessel operators should secure their 

MSDs, they state that all methods listed 

in Coast Guard regulations are among 

those that are acceptable for this 

purpose. 

The Coast Guard regulations (at 33 

CFR 159.7(b)) list the following as 

acceptable methods of securing Type I 

or Type II MSDs: 

• Closing the seacock and removing 

the handle; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72657 

• Padlocking the seacock in the 

closed position; 

• Using a non-releasable wire-tie to 

hold the seacock in the closed position; 

or 

• Locking the door to the space 

enclosing the toilets with a padlock or 

door handle key lock. 

Coast Guard regulations (at 33 CFR 

159.7(c)) list the following as acceptable 

methods of securing Type III MSDs: 

• Closing each valve leading to an 

overboard discharge and removing the 

handle; 

• Padlocking each valve leading to an 

overboard discharge in the closed 

position; or 

• Using a non-releasable wire-tie to 

hold each valve leading to an overboard 

discharge in the closed position. 

IV. Justification 

A major challenge to scientists and 

managers working in the Florida Keys 

and elsewhere is being able to 

differentiate the natural variability of 

ecosystems from human-caused 

disturbances. Signs of ecosystem stress 

in the Florida Keys include loss of coral 

cover and diversity, particularly at 

offshore bank reefs; increasing nitrogen 

and phosphorus concentrations in the 

near shore waters; decreased water 

clarity; and changes in the natural 

benthic community composition. 

Comprehensive monitoring of coral reef 

resources was initiated in 1996 because 

of the observed but poorly quantified 

loss of coral cover throughout the 

Florida Keys, and has documented a 

37% reduction in stony coral coverage 

between 1996 and 2000. Habitat and 

water quality degradation in canals and 

other semi-confined waters within the 

Florida Keys has been measured and is 

related to human population density. 

There are many variables to consider 

in assessing the impacts of MSD 

discharges from vessels transiting 

Florida Keys waters, including the 

volume of discharge, level of treatment, 

number of vessels, depth and distance 

from shore or other sources of pollution, 

current patterns, and habitat type at the 

discharge point. The dilution of 

wastewater from a single vessel 

transiting the Florida Keys may not 

cause serious ecological problems and 

may not be detectable within a short 

distance from the point of discharge. 

However, the cumulative impact from 

many transiting vessels could be 

significant, particularly where 

discharges take place in close proximity 

to coral reef or seagrass habitats (see 

environmental assessment for citations). 

Recent data show a continued upward 

trend in the number of registered vessels 

in southern Florida, which would 

suggest an increased potential of 

transient visits to the Florida Keys and 

discharges in the FKNMS. Furthermore, 

there is an area of Federal water south 

of Key West (called ‘‘the hour glass’’) 

that effectively concentrates the 

potential discharge activity of vessel 

operators. This area and all other areas 

of the FKNMS are directly upstream of 

biological resources that are negatively 

impacted by increased nutrients. In 

considering the ever-increasing boating 

population and its discharge potential 

in south Florida, continuing to allow 

MSD discharges in the Federal waters of 

the sanctuary is not compatible with 

long-term marine ecosystem protection 

strategies. Also, as a practical matter, 

allowing vessels to discharge sewage in 

Federal waters within the FKNMS while 

prohibiting discharges in state waters 

could lead to confusion among vessel 

operators and enforcement problems. 

Thus, to better protect sanctuary 

resources, eliminate possible confusion 

among vessel operators, and facilitate 

enforcement efforts, FKNMS is 

eliminating all discharges of treated and 

untreated sewage from all vessels in the 

entire sanctuary. 

V. Response to Comments 

The comments received on the 

proposed rule that was published on 

November 16, 2009 (74 FR 58923) are 

summarized below, together with 

responses from NOAA. There were 18 

distinct submissions from individuals or 

organizations, an additional 1,396 

submissions generated by form letters, 

and one submission from a Federal 

agency. The changes to the rule that 

resulted from the comments received 

are summarized in the next section of 

this preamble (VI. Summary of Changes 

From the Proposed Rule). 

Public Submissions 

1. Comment: The proposed rule 

should be implemented for several 

reasons, including: to mitigate one of 

multiple stressors on coral reefs; 

pollution is harmful and not solved by 

dilution; and MSDs do not remove all 

viruses and excess nutrients that can be 

harmful. NOAA should expeditiously 

adopt and actively enforce the proposed 

rule. 

Response: NOAA agrees there are 

multiple stressors on the ecosystems in 

the Florida Keys, one of which could be 

mitigated by prohibiting the discharge 

of treated and untreated sewage into 

FKNMS waters. Though Type I and 

Type II MSDs can reduce the viral and 

nutrient content of sewage, NOAA 

believes pumping out at approved 

facilities, rather than discharging into 

the sanctuary, is less harmful to the 

habitats and species in the FKNMS. 

2. Comment: Expanding the existing 

NDZ from state to Federal waters is 

appropriate and is consistent with the 

Florida Coastal Management Program. 

Response: NDZs only apply in state 

waters per the Clean Water Act. 

However, NOAA believes having similar 

MSD discharge regulations apply 

throughout all FKNMS waters (i.e., both 

state and Federal) will improve 

enforceability of such regulations. 

Further, this should reduce confusion 

among FKNMS visitors/users, build on 

the strong partnership between NOAA 

and the State of Florida in managing the 

FKNMS and, overall, enhance the 

protections afforded to FKNMS 

resources. 

3. Comment: NOAA should support 

the installation of land- and vesselbased pump-out facilities, and continue 

to educate the public about the 

availability and importance of using 

these facilities. 

Response: NOAA agrees installation 

of land- and vessel-based pump-out 

facilities and education are important 

components of increasing compliance 

with the proposed rule. To this end, 

NOAA will work with the appropriate 

state and Federal entities to support 

installation of adequate pump-out 

facilities. In addition, NOAA will 

provide information to the public about 

these facilities. These measures should 

help encourage vessel operators to 

reduce pollution to the FKNMS from 

vessels’ sewage discharges. 

4. Comment: The proposed rule 

should be implemented, but NOAA 

should also consider banning harmful 

vessel graywater discharges, especially 

from large cruise and cargo vessels. 

Response: NOAA agrees graywater 

discharges may be harmful to the 

ecosystem, particularly in large volumes 

in sensitive habitats. However, this 

rulemaking implements a 

recommendation from the 2007 Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Revised Management Plan that was 

specific to discharges of sewage from 

vessels. Additional water quality 

regulation may be considered in future 

FKNMS management plan reviews. 

5. Comment: The proposed rule 

should be implemented, but 

enforceability of tracking discharges 

from and locking of MSDs raises 

concerns. NOAA should include an 

enforcement component in the final rule 

that considers such issues as regular 

patrols in the FKNMS, proactive 

boarding/inspection of vessels, 

standards for acceptable types of MSD 

locks, and consequences of 

noncompliance. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: NOAA agrees adequate 

enforcement will be necessary to help 

make the rule more effective, especially 

given the size of the FKNMS and the 

number of vessels that use the FKNMS. 

Therefore, NOAA has included language 

related to enforcement in the preamble 

to the final rule to facilitate 

understanding of the requirements of 

this rule, enhance enforceability, and 

encourage compliance. Specifically, 

NOAA has included acceptable 

methods, as described in 33 CFR 

159.7(b) and (c), for securing MSDs in 

a manner that prevents discharges or 

deposits of treated and untreated sewage 

into FKNMS waters. In addition, 

language has been included in the 

environmental assessment associated 

with this rule (see ADDRESSES section for 

instructions on obtaining a copy) to 

specify that personnel from the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, the NOAA Office for Law 

Enforcement, and the U.S. Coast Guard 

are authorized to enforce this rule. 

Noncompliance would be subject to 

civil penalties pursuant to section 307 

of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1437). 

6. Comment: The proposed rule 

should be implemented, especially 

because it is consistent with the efforts 

(i.e., money being spent) by Monroe 

County to treat wastewater from landbased sources. In addition, no 

discharges should be allowed from any 

sources. 

Response: NOAA agrees that this 

action will complement other efforts by 

Monroe County and the State of Florida 

to reduce harmful discharges into the 

FKNMS and surrounding waters. This 

rulemaking builds consistency and 

enhances partnerships to improve water 

quality. Further, this rulemaking 

implements a recommendation from the 

2007 Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary Revised Management Plan 

that was specific to discharges of sewage 

from vessels. Though the prohibition of 

discharges from sources other than 

MSDs is beyond the intent of this rule, 

additional water quality regulation may 

be considered in future FKNMS 

management plan reviews. 

7. Comment: The proposed rule 

should not be implemented because it is 

ill advised, counter-productive and 

impractical to enforce. Instead, NOAA 

should actively encourage the 

installation and use of approved Type I 

MSDs, since they properly treat waste to 

make discharges harmless. 

Response: NOAA does not agree 

installation of Type I MSDs should be 

encouraged over prohibiting discharges 

from MSDs in FKNMS waters, since 

they do not adequately remove the 

viruses and excess nutrients that could 

harm FKNMS resources. Allowing any 

discharges of sewage, treated and 

untreated, is not as protective of 

FKNMS water quality as completely 

prohibiting them. Further, this rule is 

consistent with the existing discharge 

prohibitions in Florida’s state waters, 

and therefore enhances compliance and 

increases enforceability in both state 

and Federal waters. 

8. Comment: NOAA should have 

consistent, system-wide (rather than 

site-specific) procedures for designating 

NDZs in national marine sanctuaries. 

NOAA should adopt those procedures 

already established by the CWA by 

which states obtain permission from the 

EPA to designate state waters as NDZs. 

Response: The EPA’s procedures for 

establishing NDZs are not appropriate 

for every national marine sanctuary in 

the National Marine Sanctuary System 

(system), since NDZs only apply in state 

waters per the CWA, and some 

sanctuaries are located entirely in 

Federal waters. This rule encompasses 

all waters of the FKNMS, which 

includes state and Federal waters. Each 

site in the system was designated with 

different goals and objectives and, thus, 

their needs for vessel discharge 

regulations vary as well. NOAA will 

continue to evaluate the need for 

restrictions on vessel discharges on a 

sanctuary-by-sanctuary basis. 

9. Comment: NOAA has not 

demonstrated whether it considered if 

adequate pump-out facilities are 

available to vessel operators nor where 

funding will come from and be directed 

for increased access to pump-out 

facilities. NOAA cannot rely on the 

demonstration made by the State of 

Florida to the EPA unless the state had 

also considered the impact of an NDZ in 

the Federal waters of the FKNMS. 

NOAA should work with state and local 

agencies, EPA, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that 

there are adequate pump-out facilities 

available. 

Response: NOAA included 

information in the draft environmental 

assessment associated with this rule on 

the pump-out facilities in the Florida 

Keys and provided additional details 

about their locations and operational 

status in this rule’s final environmental 

assessment (see ADDRESSES section for 

instructions on obtaining a copy). 

NOAA believes that vessel operators 

will be able to adequately discharge 

MSDs at existing pump-out facilities in 

the Florida Keys, based on their current 

quantity and locations, or outside 

FKNMS boundaries as appropriate. 

Florida was awarded $2.5 million in 

grant funding from the Clean Vessel Act 

Grant Program in 2008 (with $838,976 

in matching funding provided by the 

state), and this money is being used 

through 2010 to fund up to 121 pumpout projects in the coastal regions of 

Florida, which should increase access to 

pump-out facilities for vessel operators. 

To date, nine of these additional pumpout projects are in Monroe County. 

These efforts and the NOAA MSD 

discharge regulation help implement 

Strategy L.1, Elimination of Wastewater 

Discharge from Vessels, Activities 2–5, 

in the 2007 Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary Revised Management 

Plan. 

Federal Submissions—U.S. Coast Guard 

10. Comment: The term ‘‘unlocked’’ is 

unclear and not otherwise defined, so 

NOAA should cross-reference Coast 

Guard regulations on MSDs in the rule 

to promote consistency and clarify 

regulatory compliance. 

Response: NOAA has edited the rule 

language that was proposed for 15 CFR 

922.163(a)(5)(vi) to replace ‘‘unlocked or 

that allows discharge or deposit of 

sewage’’ with ‘‘not secured in a manner 

that prevents discharges or deposits of 

treated and untreated sewage.’’ NOAA 

agrees that acceptable methods for 

securing MSDs to prevent discharges or 

deposits of treated and untreated sewage 

include, but are not limited to, the 

methods listed in the Coast Guard’s 

regulations (at 33 CFR 159.7(b) and (c)). 

Though NOAA has included the 

reference to Coast Guard’s regulations in 

this rule as a guide, vessel operators 

could use other methods if those 

methods fulfill NOAA’s goal of ensuring 

that sewage from MSDs is not 

discharged into the sanctuary. 

11. Comment: Vessels with Type I and 

II MSD technologies that require 

considerable effort to start and stop 

(certain biological or anaerobic type 

systems) might also be equipped with a 

Type III MSD, which can hold treated 

sewage while operating in an area where 

discharge is prohibited. 

Response: Comment noted. 

12. Comment: Federal, State and local 

law enforcement officers should retain 

an exemption allowing them to 

discharge biodegradable effluent 

incidental to vessel use and generated 

by MSDs into FKNMS waters, as 

eliminating the exemption would have 

a negative impact on law enforcement 

activities. Since activities in the FKNMS 

related to migrant interdiction 

operations, counter-drug smuggling 

operations, and search and rescue 

operations may be long and drawn out, 

requiring the law enforcement vessel to 

operate near the incident, leaving the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72659 

scene of the incident to discharge an 

MSD is not always an option. 

Response: NOAA agrees Federal, State 

and local law enforcement officers 

acting in their official capacities may 

not have an option to leave the scene of 

an incident to discharge an MSD. NOAA 

has amended the regulatory language in 

15 CFR 922.163(e) to ensure that the 

requirements and prohibitions of this 

rule do not apply to Federal, State and 

local officers while performing 

enforcement duties and/or responding 

to emergencies that threaten life, 

property, or the environment in their 

official capacity. 

VI. Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

Due to the comments received and the 

need for some technical fixes, NOAA 

has made a few key changes to this final 

rule as compared to the proposed rule 

as follows: 

• Provided in the preamble some 

examples from Coast Guard regulations 

of acceptable methods for securing 

MSDs in a manner that prevents 

discharges and deposits of treated and 

untreated sewage; 

• Made a conforming amendment to 

15 CFR 922.163(a)(4)(ii); 

• Clarified the language in new 

paragraph 15 CFR 922.163(a)(5)(vi) and 

added a reference to Coast Guard 

regulations; and 

• Added into 15 CFR 922.163(e) an 

exemption from this rulemaking for law 

enforcement officers performing their 

duties. 

VII. Classifications 

A. National Environmental Policy Act 

NOAA has prepared an 

environmental assessment, which 

includes a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI), regarding the impacts 

of this rulemaking. The assessment 

found that this action would eliminate 

at least one contributing factor to 

declining water quality within the 

FKNMS. Improved water quality is 

necessary for the maintenance and 

enhancement of the sanctuary’s 

biological resources, as well as of the 

recreational and commercial 

opportunities they provide. If the no 

action alternative had been adopted, it 

would have continued the discharge of 

treated sewage from MSDs into the 

Federal waters of the FKNMS, which 

would have continued to contribute to 

the decline of water quality. Poor water 

quality threatens not only the unique 

biological resources of the FKNMS, but 

also the viability of the local economy, 

which depends on the ability of these 

resources to attract visitors. Copies of 

the environmental assessment, which 

includes the FONSI, are available at the 

address and website listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this rule. 

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Impact 

This rule has been determined to be 

not significant within the meaning of 

Executive Order 12866. 

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Assessment 

NOAA has concluded that this 

regulatory action does not have 

federalism implications sufficient to 

warrant preparation of a federalism 

assessment under Executive Order 

13132. The State of Florida was 

consulted during the promulgation of 

this rule. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any new 

collection-of-information requirements 

or revisions to the existing collection-ofinformation requirement that was 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) (OMB Control 

Number 0648–0141) under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 

(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration during 

the proposed rule stage that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The factual basis for the 

certification was published in the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here. 

No comments were received regarding 

this certification. As a result, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis was not 

required, and none was prepared. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Coastal zone, Fish, Fisheries, 

Historic preservation, Intergovernmental 

relations, Marine resources, Monuments 

and memorials, Natural resources, 

Wildlife, Wildlife refuges, Wildlife 

management areas, Sanctuary 

preservation areas, Ecological reserves, 

Areas to be avoided, State of Florida, 

U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). 

Dated: November 17, 2010. 

Juliana P. Blackwell, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

National Ocean Service, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons discussed 

in the preamble, amend title 15, part 

922 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

as follows: 

PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE 

SANCTUARY PROGRAM 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 922 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 922.163 as follows: 

■ a. By removing paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B); 

■ b. By redesignating paragraphs 

(a)(4)(i)(C) and (a)(4)(i)(D) as (a)(4)(i)(B) 

and (a)(4)(i)(C), respectively; 

■ c. By revising (a)(4)(ii); and 

■ d. By adding a new paragraph 

(a)(5)(vi); 

■ e. By revising paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 922.163 Prohibited activities—Sanctuary 

wide. 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Discharging or depositing, from 

beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, 

any material or other matter that 

subsequently enters the Sanctuary and 

injures a Sanctuary resource or quality, 

except: 

(A) Those listed in paragraph 

(a)(4)(i)(A) through (a)(4)(i)(C) of this 

section; 

(B) Sewage incidental to vessel use 

and generated by a marine sanitation 

device approved in accordance with 

section 312 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. 1322 et seq.; 

(C) Those authorized under Monroe 

County land use permits; or 

(D) Those authorized under State 

permits. 

(5) * * * 

(vi) Having a marine sanitation device 

that is not secured in a manner that 

prevents discharges or deposits of 

treated and untreated sewage. 

Acceptable methods include, but are not 

limited to, all methods that have been 

approved by the U.S. Coast Guard (at 33 

CFR 159.7(b) and (c)). 

* * * * * 

(e) The following prohibitions do not 

apply to Federal, State and local officers 

while performing enforcement duties in 

their official capacities or responding to 

emergencies that threaten life, property, 

or the environment: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. 

2 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. 

3 15 U.S.C. 77aaa et seq. 

4See generally Securities Exchange Act Release 

Nos. 60372 (Jul. 23, 2009), 74 FR 37748 (Jul. 29, 

2009) and 61973 (Apr. 23, 2010), 75 FR 22656 (Apr. 

29, 2010) (temporary exemptions in connection 

with CDS clearing by ICE Clear Europe Limited); 

Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60373 (Jul. 

23, 2009), 74 FR 37740 (Jul. 29, 2009) and 61975 

(Apr. 23, 2010), 75 FR 22641 (Apr. 29, 2010) 

(temporary exemptions in connection with CDS 

clearing by Eurex Clearing AG); Securities Exchange 

Act Release Nos. 59578 (Mar. 13, 2009), 74 FR 

11781 (Mar. 19, 2009), 61164 (Dec. 14, 2009), 74 FR 

67258 (Dec. 18, 2009), and 61803 (Mar. 30, 2010), 

75 FR 17181 (Apr. 5, 2010) (temporary exemptions 

in connection with CDS clearing by Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange Inc.); Securities Exchange Act 

Release Nos. 59527 (Mar. 6, 2009), 74 FR 10791 

(Mar. 12, 2009), 61119 (Dec. 4, 2009), 74 FR 65554 

(Dec. 10, 2009), and 61662 (Mar. 5, 2010), 75 FR 

11589 (Mar. 11, 2010) (temporary exemptions in 

connection with CDS clearing by ICE Trust U.S. 

LLC); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59164 

(Dec. 24, 2008), 74 FR 139 (Jan. 2, 2009) (temporary 

exemptions in connection with CDS clearing by 

LIFFE A&M and LCH.Clearnet Ltd.) and other 

Commission actions discussed in several of these 

orders. 

5 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

6See Exchange Act Release No. 59246 (Jan. 14, 

2009). 

7See 7 U.S.C. 1a(12). 

8See generally the actions noted in footnote 4, 

supra. 

9 15 U.S.C. 78e and 78f. 

10 ‘‘Novation’’ is a ‘‘process through which the 

original obligation between a buyer and seller is 

discharged through the substitution of the CCP as 

seller to buyer and buyer to seller, creating two new 

contracts.’’ Committee on Payment and Settlement 

Systems, Technical Committee of the International 

Organization of Securities Commissioners, 

Recommendations for Central Counterparties 

(November 2004) at 66. 

11 In addition to the potential systemic risks that 

CDS pose to financial stability, we were concerned 

about other potential risks in this market, including 

operational risks, risks relating to manipulation and 

fraud, and regulatory arbitrage risks. 

(1) Those contained in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section only as it pertains 

to discharges of sewage incidental to 

vessel use and generated by a marine 

sanitation device approved in 

accordance with section 312 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(FWPCA), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1322 

et seq.; and 

(2) Those contained in paragraph 

(a)(5) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–29416 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR PARTS 230, 240 and 260 

[Release Nos. 33–9158; 34–63348; 39–2472; 

File No. S7–02–09] 

RIN 3235–AK26 

Extension of Temporary Exemptions 

for Eligible Credit Default Swaps To 

Facilitate Operation of Central 

Counterparties To Clear and Settle 

Credit Default Swaps 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final temporary rules; 

extension. 

SUMMARY: We are extending the 

expiration dates in our temporary rules 

that provide exemptions under the 

Securities Act of 1933, the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934, and the Trust 

Indenture Act of 1939 for certain credit 

default swaps in order to continue 

facilitating the operation of one or more 

central counterparties for those credit 

default swaps until the implementation 

of the clearing provisions of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act. Under the amendments, 

the expiration dates of the temporary 

rules are extended to July 16, 2011. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective November 26, 2010, and the 

expiration dates for the temporary rules 

and amendments published January 22, 

2009 (74 FR 3967) and extended in a 

release published on September 17, 

2009 (74 FR 47719) are extended from 

November 30, 2010 to July 16, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy M. Starr, Senior Special Counsel, 

or Michael J. Reedich, Special Counsel, 

Office of Chief Counsel, Division of 

Corporation Finance, at (202) 551–3500, 

U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–3628. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

adopting amendments to the following 

rules: temporary Rule 239T and Rule 

146 under the Securities Act of 1933 

(‘‘Securities Act’’),1 temporary Rule 12a– 

10T and Rule 12h–1(h)T under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Exchange Act’’),2 and temporary Rule 

4d-11T under the Trust Indenture Act of 

1939 (‘‘TIA’’).3

I. Background 

In January 2009, we adopted interim 

final temporary Rule 239T and a 

temporary amendment to Rule 146 

under the Securities Act, interim final 

temporary Rules 12a–10T and 12h– 

1(h)T under the Exchange Act, and 

interim final temporary Rule 4d–11T 

under the TIA (collectively, the 

‘‘Temporary Rules’’), and in September 

2009, we extended the expiration date 

of these rules from September 25, 2009 

to November 30, 2010. We adopted 

these rules in connection with 

temporary exemptive orders 4 we issued 

to clearing agencies acting as central 

counterparties (‘‘CCP’’), which exempted 

the CCPs from the requirement to 

register as clearing agencies under 

Section 17A of the Exchange Act 5 solely 

to perform the functions of a clearing 

agency for certain credit default swap 

(‘‘CDS’’) transactions.6 The exemptive 

orders also exempted certain eligible 

contract participants 7 and others from 

certain Exchange Act requirements with 

respect to certain CDS.8 Also at that 

time, we temporarily exempted any 

exchange that effects transactions in 

certain CDS from the requirements 

under Sections 5 and 6 of the Exchange 

Act 9 to register as a national securities 

exchange, and any broker or dealer that 

effects transactions on an exchange in 

certain CDS from the requirements of 

Section 5 of the Exchange Act. 

We adopted the Temporary Rules and 

the CCP exemptive orders because we 

believed and continue to believe that 

the existence of CCPs for CDS would be 

important in helping to reduce 

counterparty risks inherent in the CDS 

market. Today, CDS agreements 

generally are negotiated and entered 

into bilaterally, but eligible trades may 

be submitted to the CCP for novation, 

which results in the CCP becoming the 

buyer to the original seller and the seller 

to the original buyer.10 The operation of 

a well-regulated CCP can significantly 

reduce counterparty risks by preventing 

the failure of a single-market participant 

from having a disproportionate effect on 

the overall market, since bilateral 

counterparty risk is eliminated as the 

creditworthiness of the original 

counterparties is replaced by the 

creditworthiness of the CCP. 

At the time of the adoption of the 

Temporary Rules and the CCP 

exemptive orders, the OTC market for 

CDS was a source of concern to us and 

other financial regulators due to the 

systemic risk posed by CDS, the 

possible inability of parties to meet their 

obligations as counterparties under the 

CDS, and the potential resulting adverse 

effects on other markets and the 

financial system.11 In response, in 

January 2009, we took action to help 

foster the prompt development of CCPs 

for CDS, including granting conditional 

exemptions from certain provisions of 

the Federal securities laws. 

In September 2009, we extended the 

expiration date of the Temporary Rules 

to November 30, 2010 because, among 

other reasons, a number of legislative 

initiatives relating to the regulation of 

derivatives, including CDS, had been 

introduced by members of Congress and 

recommended by the United States 

Department of the Treasury 

(‘‘Treasury’’), and Congress had not yet 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES