Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 40959 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 

40103. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations to 

assign the use of the airspace necessary 

to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 

efficient use of airspace. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority as 

it amends airspace descriptions to keep 

them current. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures, paragraph 

311d. This action updates the technical 

description of special use airspace that 

does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, 

or use of the airspace. It is not expected 

to cause any potentially significant 

environmental impacts, and no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted 

areas. 

Adoption of Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 73.25 [Amended] 

■ 2. § 73.25 is amended as follows: 

* * * * * 

R–2504A Camp Roberts, CA [Amended] 

By replacing the current time of 

designation as follows: 

Time of designation. 0600 to 2400 

local time, daily. 

* * * * * 

R–2504B Camp Roberts, CA [Amended] 

By replacing the current time of 

designation as follows: 

Time of designation. 0600 to 2400 

local time, daily. 

* * * * * 

R–2530 Sierra Army Depot, CA 

[Amended] 

By replacing the current time of 

designation as follows: 

Time of designation. 0800 to 1800 

local time, Monday–Friday; other times 

by NOTAM. 

Issued in Washington, DC on July 1, 2013. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16449 Filed 7–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 90 

[OVW Docket No. 110] 

RIN 1105–AB40 

Removing Unnecessary Office on 

Violence Against Women Regulations 

AGENCY: Office on Violence Against 

Women, Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule removes the 

regulations for the STOP Violence 

Against Indian Women Discretionary 

Grant Program, because the Program no 

longer exists, and the Grants to Combat 

Violent Crimes Against Women on 

Campuses Program, because the 

regulations are no longer required and 

are unnecessary. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

9, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marnie Shiels, Office on Violence 

Against Women (OVW), United States 

Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE., 

Suite 10W.121, Washington, DC 20530 

at marnie.shiels@usdoj.gov or (202) 

305–2981. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

STOP VAIW Program 

In 1994, Congress passed the Violence 

Against Women Act (VAWA), a 

comprehensive legislative package 

aimed at ending violence against 

women. VAWA was enacted on 

September 13, 1994, as title IV of the 

Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 

103–322, 108 Stat. 1796. VAWA was 

designed to improve criminal justice 

system responses to domestic violence, 

sexual assault, and stalking, and to 

increase the availability of services for 

victims of these crimes. The STOP 

VAIW Program was codified at 42 

U.S.C. 3796gg through 3796gg–5. The 

final rule for this program, found at 28 

CFR part 90, subpart C, under the 

heading Indian Tribal Governments 

Discretionary Program, was 

promulgated on April 18, 1995 (74 FR 

19474). 

The Violence Against Women and 

Department of Justice Reauthorization 

Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), Public Law 

109–162, 119 Stat. 2960 (January 5, 

2006) (hereinafter ‘‘VAWA 2005’’), 

eliminated the STOP VAIW Program 

and replaced it with the Grants to 

Indian Tribal Governments Program, 

which is codified at 42 U.S.C. 3796gg– 

10. Accordingly, this rule removes the 

now unnecessary STOP VAIW Program 

regulations. 

Higher Education Amendments of 1998 

Violence against women on college 

and university campuses also is a 

serious, widespread problem. To help 

address this problem, Congress 

authorized the Grants to Combat Violent 

Crimes Against Women on Campuses 

Program in title VIII, part E, section 826 

of the Higher Education Amendments of 

1998, Public Law 105–244, 112 Stat. 

1581 (Oct. 7, 1998). Consistent with 

VAWA, the Grants to Combat Violent 

Crimes Against Women on Campuses 

Program was designed to encourage the 

higher education community to adopt 

comprehensive, coordinated strategies 

for preventing and stopping violence 

against women. This program was 

originally codified at 20 U.S.C. 1152. 

The final rule for the program, found at 

28 CFR part 90, subpart E, was 

promulgated on July 22, 1999 (64 FR 

39774). VAWA 2005 amended the 

Campus Program and renamed it the 

Grants to Combat Violent Crimes on 

Campus Program (Campus Program) and 

recodified it at 42 U.S.C. 14045b. 

When VAWA 2005 recodified the 

program, it removed the requirement for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40960 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations. The current regulations are 

unnecessary as they add very little that 

is not already legally required under 

VAWA 2005 for grantees of the Campus 

Program. Accordingly, this rule also 

removes the Grants to Combat Violent 

Crimes Against Women on Campuses 

regulation. 

The Office on Violence Against 

Women published the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal 

Register on May 18, 2012. Comments 

were due by July 17, 2012. No 

comments were received in any form. 

Therefore, the Office on Violence 

Against Women is finalizing the 

proposed rule without change. This rule 

was reviewed by the Department of 

Justice’s Regulatory Review Working 

Group, which was formed to implement 

Executive Order 13563 according to the 

criteria set forth in the Department’s 

Plan for Retrospective Analysis of 

Existing Rules. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563— 

Regulatory Review 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation, and in accordance with 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

section 1(b). General Principles of 

Regulation. 

The Department of Justice has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Further, both Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. The 

Department has assessed the costs and 

benefits of this regulation and believes 

that the regulatory approach selected 

maximizes net benefits. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

As set forth more fully above in the 

Supplementary Information portion, 

this rule will not result in substantial 

direct increased costs to Indian Tribal 

governments. Eliminating regulations 

for a program that no longer exists will 

not affect tribes. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Office on Violence Against 

Women, in accordance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)), has reviewed this regulation 

and, by approving it, certifies that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reason: The economic impact 

is limited to the Office on Violence 

Against Women’s appropriated funds. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and it will not uniquely 

affect small governments. Therefore, no 

actions were deemed necessary under 

the provisions of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in cost or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 90 

Grant programs; Judicial 

administration. 

For the reason set forth in the 

preamble, the Office on Violence 

Against Women amends 28 CFR part 90 

as follows: 

PART 90—VIOLENCE AGAINST 

WOMEN 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 90 

reads as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3711–3796gg–7; Sec. 

826, Part E, Title VIII, Pub. L. 105–244, 112 

Stat. 1581, 1815. 

Subpart C—[Removed and Reserved] 

■ 2. Remove and reserve subpart C, 

consisting of §§ 90.50–90.59. 

Subpart E—[Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve subpart E, 

consisting of §§ 90.100–90.106. 

Dated: July 1, 2013. 

Bea Hanson, 

Acting Director, Office on Violence Against 

Women, U.S. Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16400 Filed 7–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0577] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Lake Washington Ship Canal at 

Seattle, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs two Seattle 

Department of Transportation (SDOT) 

bridges: The Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, 

and the University Bridge, mile 4.3, all 

crossing the Lake Washington Ship 

Canal at Seattle, WA. The deviation is 

necessary to accommodate the ‘‘See Jane 

Run Women’s Half Marathon.’’ This 

deviation allows the bridges to remain 

in the closed position to accommodate 

the safe movement of event participants. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on July 14, 2013 for 

the Fremont Bridge, and from 8:45 a.m. 

to 9:15 a.m. on July 14, 2013 for the 

University Bridge. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES