Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49813 

approval or authorization required by 

the member state to utilize such 

source(s). 

(ii) Sources of water other than those 

subject to paragraph (f)(12)(i) of this 

section, including, but not limited to, 

public water supply, wastewater 

discharge or other reclaimed waters, 

provided such sources are first 

approved by the Executive Director 

pursuant to this section. Any request to 

utilize such source(s) shall be submitted 

on a form and in a manner as prescribed 

by the Commission, and shall be subject 

to review pursuant to the standards set 

forth in subpart C of this part. Any 

approval issued hereunder shall be 

further subject to any approval or 

authorization required by the member 

state to utilize such source(s). The 

notice requirements related to agencies 

of member states, municipalities and 

counties contained in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section, and the notice 

requirements contained in paragraph 

(f)(3) of this section, shall likewise be 

applicable to any request submitted 

hereunder. 

Subpart D—Terms and Conditions of 

Approval 

■ 3. In § 806.32, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 806.32 Reopening/modification. 

(a) Once a project is approved, the 

Commission, upon its own motion, or 

upon petition of the project sponsor or 

any interested party, may at any time 

reopen any project approval and make 

additional orders or otherwise modify or 

impose such additional conditions that 

may be necessary to mitigate or avoid 

adverse impacts or to otherwise protect 

the public health, safety, and welfare or 

water resources. Whenever a petition for 

reopening is filed by an interested party, 

the burden shall be upon that interested 

party to show, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, that a significant adverse 

impact or a threat to the public health, 

safety and welfare or water resources 

exists that warrants reopening of the 

docket. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

any petition filed by a party who 

previously sought the same or 

functionally equivalent relief identified 

in the petition pursuant to the 

administrative appeals process under 

§ 808.2 will not be eligible for 

consideration by the Commission absent 

new facts not known or readily 

discernable at the time of consideration 

of the petitioner’s previous request for 

administrative appeal filed pursuant to 

§ 808.2. 

* * * * * 

PART 808—HEARINGS AND 

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 

■ 4. The authority citation for Part 808 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 3.4, 3.5(5), 3.8, 3.10 and 

15.2, Public Law 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq. 

Subpart A—Conduct of Hearings 

■ 5. In § 808.1, revise paragraphs (a)(2) 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 808.1 Public hearings. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Proposed rulemaking. 

* * * * * 

(c) Notice of public hearing. At least 

20 days before any public hearing 

required by the compact, notices stating 

the date, time, place and purpose of the 

hearing including issues of interest to 

the Commission shall be published at 

least once in a newspaper of general 

circulation in the area affected. 

Occasions when public hearings are 

required by the compact include, but are 

not limited to, amendments to the 

comprehensive plan, drought 

emergency declarations, and review and 

approval of diversions. In all other 

cases, at least 10 days prior to the 

hearing, notice shall be posted at the 

office of the Commission (or on the 

Commission Web site), mailed by first 

class mail to the parties who, to the 

Commission’s knowledge, will 

participate in the hearing, and mailed 

by first class mail to persons, 

organizations and news media who have 

made requests to the Commission for 

notices of hearings or of a particular 

hearing. With regard to rulemaking, the 

Commission shall convene at least one 

public hearing on any proposed 

rulemaking it approves for public 

review and comment. For any such 

hearing(s), notices need only be 

forwarded to the directors of the New 

York Register, the Pennsylvania 

bulletin, the Maryland Register and the 

Federal Register, and it is sufficient that 

this notice appear only in the Federal 

Register at least 20 days prior to the 

hearing and in each individual state 

publication at least 10 days prior to any 

hearing scheduled in that state. 

■ 6. In § 808.2, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 808.2 Administrative appeals. 

(a) A project sponsor or other person 

aggrieved by any action or decision of 

the Commission or Executive Director 

may file a written appeal requesting a 

hearing. Except with respect to project 

approvals or denials, such appeal shall 

be filed with the Commission within 30 

days of the action or decision. In the 

case of a project approval or denial, 

such appeal shall be filed by a project 

sponsor within 30 days of receipt of 

actual notice, and by all others within 

30 days of publication of notice of the 

action taken on the project in the 

Federal Register. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 16, 2009. 

Thomas W. Beauduy, 

Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–23281 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7040–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0854] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Special Anchorage Areas; Henderson 

Harbor, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Coast 

Guard removes a note which states from 

whom one must obtain permission to 

moor or anchor in the special anchorage 

areas of Henderson Harbor, NY. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

0854 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–0854 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Lieutenant Michael C. Petta, 

Ninth District Legal Office, Coast Guard, 

telephone 216–902–6010, e-mail 

michael.c.petta@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on obtaining permission to 

moor or anchor in the special anchorage 

areas of Henderson Harbor, NY, call the 

Town Board, telephone 315–938–5542. 

If you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
49814 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this final 

rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because this 

amendment is minor and merely 

technical in nature in that it simply 

removes the note which states one must 

obtain permission from the Town of 

Henderson Harbormaster to moor or 

anchor in the special anchorage areas of 

Henderson Harbor, NY. Notice and 

comment is unnecessary because, as 

discussed below, the local ordinance 

has changed such that the Harbormaster 

no longer receives requests to moor or 

anchor. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Good cause exists because the 

local ordinance has changed such that 

the Harbormaster no longer receives 

requests to moor or anchor, and leaving 

the note in place would provide 

inaccurate information. 

Background and Purpose 

On June 11, 2009, the Town of 

Henderson Harbor revised its boating 

ordinance. One result of that revision is 

that the town’s harbormaster is no 

longer the party from whom one obtains 

permission to moor or anchor in the 

Henderson Harbor special anchorage 

areas. This rule responds to the town’s 

request to remove from 33 CFR 110.87 

the note which states that the town’s 

harbormaster is the party from whom 

one must obtain permission. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule contains no new provisions. 

Neither does it amend or remove any 

substantive provisions. Instead, this rule 

merely removes from 33 CFR 110.87 the 

note which states that the town’s 

harbormaster is the party from whom 

one must obtain permission to moor or 

anchor in the Henderson Harbor, NY 

special anchorage areas. This change is 

necessary because the town of 

Henderson Harbor recently revised its 

boating laws to include removing its 

harbormaster as the permit granting 

party. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

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

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. This rule is not considered a 

significant regulatory action because the 

removal of the town’s harbormaster as 

the party from whom one must obtain 

permission to moor or anchor in the 

Henderson Harbor special anchorage 

areas is a minor, non-substantive, and 

administrative change. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to moor or anchor in 

either of the special anchorage areas in 

Henderson Harbor, NY. 

The removal of the town’s 

harbormaster as the party from whom 

one must obtain permission to moor or 

anchor in the Henderson Harbor special 

anchorage areas will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because this rule is a minor, technical 

change to the regulation. It does not 

alter the size or character of the special 

anchorage areas. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

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

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

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

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty 

rights of Native American Tribes. 

Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed 

to working with Tribal Governments to 

implement local policies and to mitigate 

tribal concerns. We have determined 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49815 

that this rule and fishing rights 

protection need not be incompatible. 

We have also determined that this 

proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have 

questions concerning the provisions of 

this proposed rule or options for 

compliance are encouraged to contact 

the point of contact listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

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

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(a), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves the promulgation of a 

procedural regulation, in that it merely 

removes the Henderson Harbor’s 

harbormaster as the party from whom 

one must obtain permission to moor or 

anchor in the harbor’s special anchorage 

areas. This rule does not alter the size 

or character of the special anchorage 

areas. Under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(a), of the Instruction, an 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

not required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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. 

§ 110.87 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 110.87, remove the Note. 

Dated: September 17, 2009. 

D.R. Callahan, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District, Acting. 

[FR Doc. E9–23390 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0884] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Safety Zone and Regulated Navigation 

Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship 

Canal, Romeoville, IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone and regulated 

navigation area on the Chicago Sanitary 

and Ship Canal near Romeoville, IL. 

This temporary final rule places 

navigational and operational restrictions 

on all vessels transiting the navigable 

waters located adjacent to and over the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) 

electrical dispersal fish barrier system. 

DATES: This temporary final rule is 

effective from 5 p.m. on September 29, 

2009, until 5 p.m. on October 16, 2009. 

This temporary final rule is enforceable 

with actual notice by Coast Guard 

personnel beginning September 18, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

0884 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–0884 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

final rule, call CDR Tim Cummins, 

Deputy Prevention Division, Ninth 

Coast Guard District, telephone 216– 

902–6045. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

made the decision, without time for a 

proper notice period, to permanently 

increase the voltage of the fish barrier to 

two-volts per inch in response to data 

which indicates that Asian carp are 

closer to the Great Lakes waterway 

system than originally thought. The 

electric current in the water created by 

the electrical dispersal barriers coupled 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES