47906 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Family and Medical Emergencies 

Part 382 provides that, when a 

passenger does not provide advance 

notice for accommodations to which a 

carrier may apply an advance notice 

requirement, the carrier must provide 

the accommodation if it can do so by 

making reasonable efforts, without 

delaying the flights (see section 

382.27(g)). The Department’s rule is 

now in effect: Have passengers or 

airlines encountered any actual 

problems concerning the 

implementation of the provisions in 

question in this context? 

The Department has issued the 

following FAQ discussing this principle 

in the context of the procedural steps of 

section 382.117(e): 

Q. When must a carrier accommodate a 

passenger accompanied by an emotional 

support or psychiatric service animal who 

has not provided 48 hours’ advance notice? 

A. Carriers must accommodate a passenger 

accompanied by an emotional support or 

psychiatric service animal who has not 

provided 48 hours’ advance notice if the 

carrier can do so by making reasonable 

efforts, without delaying a flight. The carrier, 

at its discretion, may waive its 48 hours’ 

advance notice requirement in order to 

expedite the emergency air travel of a 

passenger accompanied by an emotional 

support or psychiatric service animal. 

Does this guidance adequately handle 

the situation of ESA or PSA users with 

a family or medical emergency requiring 

short-notice travel? Should air carriers 

be able to require documentation of the 

emergency from someone seeking to 

travel with a PSA or ESA who cannot 

provide 48 hours’ notice? Are there 

additional regulatory or guidance 

statements the Department should make 

on this matter, such as criteria for when 

and on what basis the 48 hours’ advance 

notice period should be waived? 

Lack of Medical Insurance or a Mental 

Health Care Provider 

In the absence of recent 

documentation from a mental health 

professional, how is an air carrier to 

determine whether a passenger has a 

current need for an ESA or PSA? Would 

anyone using a PSA or ESA have had a 

medical recommendation for the use of 

such an animal at some time in the past 

that could be documented? If not, what 

information could establish a basis for 

the individual’s claim that he or she 

needs a service animal? The Department 

has issued the following FAQ 

discussing this principle in the context 

of the procedural steps of section 

382.117(e): 

Q. May a carrier accept documentation 

from a licensed mental health professional 

concerning his or her need for a psychiatric 

or emotional support animal if the 

documentation is more than one year old? 

A. Carriers may, at their discretion, accept 

from the passenger documentation from his 

or her licensed mental health professional 

that is more than one year old. We encourage 

carriers to consider accepting ‘‘outdated’’ 

documentation in situations where a 

passenger with a disability provides a letter 

or notice of cancellation or other written 

communication indicating the cessation of 

health insurance coverage, and his/her 

inability to afford treatment for his or her 

mental or emotional disability. 

Does this guidance successfully address 

the situation of persons with mental 

health-related disabilities who may 

currently lack medical insurance? What 

is the experience of airlines and 

passengers with the existing rule and 

guidance, which are now in effect? 

Should the guidance or underlying 

regulatory provisions be changed (e.g., 

to eliminate the requirement, change the 

period of one year to something else, 

require airlines to include alternate 

documentation in some cases)? 

Use of General Practitioners 

The Department has clarified in the 

regulatory text of section 382.117(e), 

quoted above under ‘‘The Current 

Regulation,’’ that among the individuals 

authorized to provide documentation 

concerning the need for ESAs or PSAs 

include medical doctors who are 

specifically treating a passenger’s 

mental or emotional disability. Does this 

clarification successfully address the 

concern about the types of doctors who 

can provide the documentation that the 

rule now requires? If not, what 

additional provisions would 

commenters recommend? 

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 

Analogy 

The Department notes that the ACAA 

is a separate statute from the ADA. The 

ACAA is a specialized statute dealing 

only with transportation by air, in an 

environment in which a large number of 

people are confined within a limited 

space for what may be a prolonged 

period of time. The Department has long 

taken the position that accommodations 

for persons with disabilities, and DOT 

requirements for them, may justifiably 

differ between the air travel context and 

other contexts, such as places of public 

accommodation regulated by the 

Department of Justice under its ADA 

regulations. We seek comment on the 

application of this principle in the 

matter of PSAs and ESAs. 

Alternatives for Consideration 

After reviewing comments on this 

notice, the Department could make a 

number of different decisions with 

respect to the issues involved. The 

following are examples of actions the 

Department could take: 

1. Leave the rule unchanged. 

2. Leave the basic provisions of the 

rule (i.e., concerning documentation 

and advance notice) unchanged, but add 

provisions relating to specific concerns 

about the implementation of these 

provisions (e.g., with respect to medical 

privacy or other matters now addressed 

by FAQs). 

3. Eliminate documentation and 

advance notice provisions for all types 

of animals assisting passengers with 

disabilities. 

4. Eliminate the documentation and 

advance notice provisions for PSAs, but 

leave the provisions in effect for ESAs. 

5. Leave the existing documentation 

and advance notice provisions for 

passengers with disabilities who wish to 

bring service animals on board an 

aircraft but whose types of disabilities 

are not readily apparent. 

6. Leave the existing documentation 

and advance notice provisions in effect 

for ESAs and PSAs, but add parallel 

provisions for all passengers with 

disabilities who wish to bring service 

animals on board an aircraft. 

7. Substitute an alternative method of 

preventing ‘‘cheating’’ that would allow 

airlines to distinguish service animals 

from pets but that did not involve the 

current documentation and/or advance 

notice provisions. 

The fact that an idea is on this list 

does not mean that the Department 

necessarily supports it or believes that 

it would be good policy; the list merely 

sets out a range of possible approaches 

to the issues raised by the PSDS 

petition. Nor is the list exhaustive; the 

Department solicits other ideas for 

addressing these issues as well. 

Issued this 27th day of August 2009, at 

Washington, DC. 

Christa Fornarotto, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E9–21351 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket No. USCG 2008–1082] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Regulations; Port of New 

York 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47907 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend Anchorage Ground No. 19 

located east of the WeehawkenEdgewater Federal Channel on the 

Hudson River. This action is necessary 

to facilitate safe navigation and provide 

safe and secure anchorages for vessels 

operating in the area. This proposal is 

intended to increase the safety of life 

and property of both the anchored 

vessels and those operating in the area 

as well as to provide for the overall safe 

and efficient flow of commerce. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before November 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2008–1082 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Mr. Jeff Yunker, 

Coast Guard Sector New York, 

Waterways Management Division; 

telephone 718–354–4195, e-mail 

Jeff.M.Yunker@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–1082), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand delivery, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and click on 

the ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which 

will then become highlighted in blue. In 

the ‘‘Document Type’’ drop-down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2008–1082’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ and then click on 

the balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. If you submit your comments 

by mail or hand delivery, submit them 

in an unbound format, no larger than 

81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying 

and electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and click on 

the ‘‘Read comments’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2008– 

1082’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008 issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The Hudson River Pilots Association, 

through the Port of New York/New 

Jersey Harbor Safety, Navigation and 

Operations Committee, has requested 

that the Coast Guard revise the 

boundaries of Anchorage Ground No. 19 

which is located on the Hudson River, 

east of the Weehawken-Edgewater 

Federal Channel and south of the 

George Washington Bridge. 

Due to severe recurring shoaling 

within the Weehawken-Edgewater 

Federal Channel, the Hudson River 

Pilots requested and received 

authorization from the Coast Guard and 

Army Corps of Engineers to pilot vessels 

through the deeper and safer water 

located east of the WeehawkenEdgewater Federal Channel which is 

within the current boundaries of 

Anchorage Ground No. 19. 

This proposed revision would divide 

Anchorage Ground 19 into two separate 

Anchorage Areas; Anchorage Ground 

No. 19 West and Anchorage Ground No. 

19 East. This proposed change will 

allow deep draft vessels to transit the 

deeper water without having to transit 

through the current boundaries of 

Anchorage Ground 19. The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with 

this rulemaking, intends to relocate the 

Weehawken-Edgewater Federal Channel 

to the East of its current location. Under 

this proposed rule, The WeehawkenEdgewater Federal Channel would be 

located between the proposed 

Anchorage Ground No. 19 West and 

Anchorage Ground No. 19 East. Due to 

shoaling, the March 2007 (ACOE) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
47908 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

survey verified a controlling depth of 27 

feet in the Right Outside Quarter of the 

Weehawken-Edgewater Channel where 

vessels bound for ports north of New 

York City would have to transit. As 

published by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (ACOE) Institute for Water 

Resources, vessels with drafts of up to 

34 feet transit the Hudson River. In 

calendar year 2006, there were 6,562 

transits on the Hudson River between 

the mouth of the Harlem River and 

Waterford, NY by vessels with a draft of 

27 feet or greater. Vessels with a draft 

of 27 feet or greater would be required 

to transit through the new channel 

which is within the current boundaries 

of Anchorage Ground No. 19. 

Tug & Barge traffic within the harbor 

has increased 37% since 1991. 

Anchorage Ground No. 19 is the closest 

Anchorage Ground to use when there is 

no space for temporary anchoring 

within the Upper New York Bay 

Anchorage Grounds. Hence, these 

vessels transit to Anchorage Ground No. 

19 to await a berth, or orders, to 

minimize fuel consumption and provide 

an orderly flow of commerce within the 

harbor and the New England region. 

On October 14, 2008 the Captain of 

the Port (COTP) issued an Advisory 

Notice to all Tug & Barge operators and 

the Hudson River Pilots. The COTP 

notified the maritime community that in 

accordance with 33 CFR 110.155(c)(5)(i) 

he would only grant permission for 

vessels to anchor on the western 

boundary of the existing Anchorage 

Ground No. 19 as an interim measure to 

facilitate vessel transits through the area 

while alternatives are explored. 

This proposed rule would modify 

Anchorage Ground No. 19 and remove 

the need for vessels to transit through 

the anchorage when the Army Corps 

relocates Weehawken-Edgewater 

Federal Channel to the Eastern portion 

of the Hudson River. This proposed rule 

will eliminate the unsafe transit 

conditions of deep draft vessels 

transiting through the current 

Anchorage Ground No. 19. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

In this rule we propose to divide the 

current Anchorage Ground No. 19 into 

two Anchorage Grounds. Anchorage No. 

19 East would be bounded by the 

following points: 40°49′42.6′′ N, 

073°57′14.7′′ W; thence to 40°49′45.9′′ N, 

073°57′22.0′′ W; thence to 40°49′52.0′′ N, 

073°57′22.0′′ W; thence to 40°50′08.3′′ N, 

073°57′10.8′′ W; thence to 40°50′55.4′′ N, 

073°56′59.7′′ W; thence to 40°51′02.5′′ N, 

073°56′57.4′′ W; thence to 40°51′00.8′′ N, 

073°56′49.4′′W; thence along the 

shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 

83). Anchorage No. 19 West would be 

bounded by the following points: 

40°46′56.3′′ N, 073°59′42.2′′ W; thence to 

40°47′36.9′′ N, 073°59′11.7′′ W; thence to 

40°49′31.3′′ N, 073°57′43.8′′ W; thence to 

40°49′40.2′′ N, 073°57′37.6′′ W; thence to 

40°49′52.4′′ N, 073°57′37.6′′ W; thence to 

40°49′57.7′′ N, 073°57′47.3′′ W; thence to 

40°49′32.2′′ N, 073°58′12.9′′ W; thence to 

40°49′00.7′′ N, 073°58′33.1′′ W; thence to 

40°48′28.7′′ N, 073°58′53.8′′ W; thence to 

40°47′38.2′′ N, 073°59′31.2′′ W; thence to 

40°47′02.7′′ N, 073°59′57.4′′ W; thence to 

the point of origin (NAD 83). 

The current Anchorage Ground No. 19 

covers 1,352 acres. The proposed 

Anchorage Ground No. 19 West would 

cover 714.5 acres while the proposed 

Anchorage Ground No. 19 East would 

cover 185.5 acres. There would be 400 

yards separating the two Anchorage 

Grounds for vessel transits. 

We propose to revise the regulations 

specific to these two anchorage grounds 

and change the current numbering 

within this section. The new regulations 

applicable to Anchorage 19 East and 

West will appear in 33 CFR 

110.155(c)(5)(iii)(A)–(E). The proposed 

changes to the anchorage regulations are 

detailed below. 

We propose to discontinue the 

requirement (currently at 33 CFR 

110.155(c)(5)(i)) that all vessels obtain 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

prior to anchoring. The Captain of the 

Port is currently not authorizing any 

vessels to anchor within the proposed 

revised Federal Channel. If the proposed 

rule is finalized, then the Coast Guard 

would no longer require this regulation 

to stop vessels from anchoring within 

the deep water being used for vessel 

transits. Vessels may still be required to 

shift their position into, or within, the 

anchorage under the authority of 33 CFR 

110.155(l)(12). 

We propose to discontinue the 

requirement (currently at 33 CFR 

110.155(c)(5)(ii)) that each vessel report 

its position to the Captain of the Port 

immediately after anchoring. This 

provision is no longer required due to 

vessels already reporting their position 

via their Automated Identification 

System (AIS) equipment and/or radar 

returns from the vessels received by the 

Coast Guard and Vessel Traffic Service 

(VTS). 

We propose to revise the regulation 

(currently at 33 CFR 110.155(c)(5)(iii)) 

that currently provides that no vessel 

may conduct lightering operations in 

these anchorage grounds without 

permission from the Captain of the Port. 

The revision will clarify that when 

lightering is requested, the Captain of 

the Port must be notified at least four 

hours in advance of a vessel conducting 

lightering operations as required by 

§ 156.118 of this title. 

We propose to discontinue the 

requirement (currently at 33 CFR 

110.155(c)(5)(iv)) that each vessel move 

when the Captain of the Port notifies 

them the Anchorage is required by naval 

vessels. This regulation is no longer 

required as the closest naval facility is 

now located approximately 22 nautical 

miles away at Earle, NJ. A copy of this 

notice of proposed rulemaking will be 

provided to the Navy seeking comment 

regarding the disestablishment of the 

Naval Anchorages in this area and 

whether they intend to anchor vessels 

on this part of the Hudson River at a 

future time. Additionally, vessels may 

still be required to shift their position 

into, or within, the anchorage under 

current Captain of the Port authority as 

provided for in 33 CFR 110.155(l)(12). 

We propose to revise the regulation 

(currently at 33 CFR 110.155(c)(5)(v)) 

requiring 48 hours advance notice to the 

Captain of the Port from vessels over 

800 feet in length overall, or 40 feet in 

draft, requesting to use the anchorage. 

As discussed below, we propose to limit 

this anchorage ground to tugs and/or 

barges. Ships will not be authorized to 

anchor in these proposed anchorage 

grounds as they are already anchoring 

outside of the Federal Channel, off 

Yonkers, NY, approximately 5 to 10 

nautical miles north of these proposed 

revised anchorage grounds. 

We propose to add a requirement that 

any vessel conducting lightering or 

bunkering operations shall display by 

day a red flag (Pub 102; International 

Code of Signals; signaling instructions) 

at its mast head or at least 10 feet above 

the upper deck if the vessel has no mast, 

and by night the flag must be 

illuminated by spotlight. These signals 

shall be in addition to day signals, lights 

and whistle signals as required by rules 

30 (33 U.S.C. 2030) and 35 (33 U.S.C. 

2035) of the Inland Navigation Rules 

when at anchor in a general anchorage 

area. 

We propose to add a requirement that 

within an anchorage, fishing and 

navigation are prohibited within 500 

yards of an anchored vessel displaying 

a red flag by day or a red light by night. 

We propose to add a regulation (the 

proposed 33 CFR 110.155(c)(5)(iii)(D)) 

to specify that these anchorage grounds 

are only authorized for use by tugs and/ 

or barges. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47909 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. This conclusion is based 

upon the fact that there are no fees, 

permits, or specialized requirements for 

the maritime industry to utilize these 

anchorage areas. The regulation is solely 

for the purpose of advancing safety of 

maritime commerce. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would affect 

the following entities, some of which 

might be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

through the proposed Anchorage 

Grounds 19 East and 19 West. Vessels 

intending to anchor in the current 

Anchorage Ground No. 19 would still be 

able to anchor in the revised Anchorage 

Ground No. 19 East or No. 19 West. 

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. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Mr. Jeff 

Yunker at 718–354–4195. 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. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would 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 proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. This proposed rule 

does not use technical standards. 

Therefore, we did not consider the use 

of voluntary consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under 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 made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
47910 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This rule 

involves changing the size of anchorage 

grounds resulting in a reduction in the 

overall size of the anchorage area. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Amend § 110.155, by revising 

paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 110.155 Port of New York. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) Anchorages No. 19 East and 19 

West. 

(i) Anchorage No. 19 East. All waters 

of the Hudson River bound by the 

following points: 40°49′42.6′′ N, 

073°57′14.7′′ W; thence to 40°49′45.9′′ N, 

073°57′22.0′′ W; thence to 40°49′52.0′′ N, 

073°57′22.0′′ W; thence to 40°50′08.3′′ N, 

073°57′10.8′′ W; thence to 40°50′55.4′′ N, 

073°56′59.7′′ W; thence to 40°51′02.5′′ N, 

073°56′57.4′′ W; thence to 40°51′00.8′′ N, 

073°56′49.4′′ W; thence along the 

shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 

83). 

(ii) Anchorage No. 19 West. All waters 

of the Hudson River bound by the 

following points: 40°46′56.3′′ N, 

073°59′42.2′′ W; thence to 40°47′36.9′′ N, 

073°59′11.7′′ W; thence to 40°49′31.3′′ N, 

073°57′43.8′′ W; thence to 40°49′40.2′′ N, 

073°57′37.6′′ W; thence to 40°49′52.4′′ N, 

073°57′37.6′′ W; thence to 40°49′57.7′′ N, 

073°57′47.3′′ W; thence to 40°49′32.2′′ N, 

073°58′12.9′′ W; thence to 40°49′00.7′′ N, 

073°58′33.1′′ W; thence to 40°48′28.7′′ N, 

073°58′53.8′′ W; thence to 40°47′38.2′′ N, 

073°59′31.2′′ W; thence to 40°47′02.7′′ N, 

073°59′57.4′′ W; thence to the point of 

origin. 

(iii) The following regulations apply 

to 33 CFR 110.155(c)(5)(i) and (ii): 

(A) No vessel may conduct lightering 

operations in these anchorage grounds 

without permission from the Captain of 

the Port. When lightering is authorized, 

the Captain of the Port New York must 

be notified at least four hours in 

advance of a vessel conducting 

lightering operations as required by 

§ 156.118 of this title. 

(B) Any vessel conducting lightering 

or bunkering operations shall display by 

day a red flag (Pub 102; International 

Code of Signals; signaling instructions) 

at its mast head or at least 10 feet above 

the upper deck if the vessel has no mast, 

and by night the flag must be 

illuminated by spotlight. These signals 

shall be in addition to day signals, lights 

and whistle signals as required by rules 

30 (33 U.S.C. 2030) and 35 (33 U.S.C. 

2035) of the Inland Navigation Rules 

when at anchor in a general anchorage 

area. 

(C) Within an anchorage, fishing and 

navigation are prohibited within 500 

yards of an anchored vessel displaying 

a red flag by day or a red light by night. 

(D) These anchorage grounds are only 

authorized for use by tugs and/or barges. 

(E) No vessel may occupy this 

anchorage ground for a period of time in 

excess of 96 hours without prior 

approval of the Captain of the Port. 

(F) All coordinates referenced use 

datum: NAD 83. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 23, 2009. 

Dale G. Gabel, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–22457 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2005–0463; FRL–8957–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Revisions to the Denver 

Emergency Episode Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions to the Denver Emergency 

Episode Plan submitted by the State of 

Colorado on September 16, 1997. EPA 

has determined that the Denver 

Emergency Episode Plan revisions meet 

the requirements for the prevention of 

air pollution emergency episodes with 

ambient concentrations of air pollutants 

that may endanger public health and 

welfare. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP revision as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If EPA receives no adverse 

comments, EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

withdraw the direct final rule and it will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on this proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2005–0463, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, 

Director, Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed instruction 

on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6436, 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1