Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 37 / Thursday, February 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 8747 

1 Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear 

Plant Interface Coordination, Order No. 716, 73 FR 

63,770 (Oct. 27, 2008), 125 FERC ¶ 61,065, 

addressing proposals in Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NOPR), 73 FR 16,586 (Mar. 28, 2008), 

FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 32,629 (2008). 

2 Id. P 68. 

3The NERC glossary defines NPIRs as ‘‘The 

requirements, based on [nuclear plant licensing 

requirements] and Bulk Electric System 

requirements, that have been mutually agreed to by 

the Nuclear Plant Generator Operator and the 

applicable Transmission Entities.’’ 

4The Nuclear Reliability Standard list of the 

applicable functional entities consists of 

transmission operators, transmission owners, 

transmission planners, transmission service 

providers, balancing authorities, reliability 

coordinators, planning authorities, distribution 

providers, load-serving entities, generator owners 

and generator operators. 

FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 

01/22/09 ...... MQ SAND ISLAND, MIDWAY 

ATOLL.

HENDERSON FLD .............................. 9/2621 NDB RWY 24, ORIG 

01/22/09 ...... MQ SAND ISLAND, MIDWAY 

ATOLL.

HENDERSON FLD .............................. 9/2622 NDB RWY 6, ORIG 

01/23/09 ...... OK TULSA ............................. TULSA INTL ......................................... 9/2663 ILS OR LOC RWY 36R, ILS 

RWY 36R (CAT II) AMDT 29 

01/23/09 ...... MN MINNEAPOLIS ................ AIRLAKE .............................................. 9/2667 VOR OR GPS RWY 12, AMDT

1A 

01/23/09 ...... MN MINNEAPOLIS ................ AIRLAKE .............................................. 9/2668 ILS OR LOC RWY 30, ORIG–B 

01/23/09 ...... TX EL PASO ......................... HORIZON ............................................. 9/2701 VOR/DME OR GPS A, AMDT 4A 

01/23/09 ...... TX EL PASO ......................... EL PASO INTL ..................................... 9/2704 RADAR–1, AMDT 13B 

01/23/09 ...... TX EL PASO ......................... EL PASO INTL ..................................... 9/2705 ILS OR LOC RWY 22, AMDT 

32A 

01/23/09 ...... TX EL PASO ......................... EL PASO INTL ..................................... 9/2706 GPS RWY 4, ORIG–A 

01/23/09 ...... TX EL PASO ......................... EL PASO INTL ..................................... 9/2707 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, ORIG–A 

01/23/09 ...... NY CANANDAIGUA .............. CANANDAIGUA ................................... 9/2878 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, ORIG 

02/03/09 ...... MD BALTIMORE .................... BALTIMORE–WASHINGTON INTL 

THURGOOD MARSHALL.

9/3453 ILS RWY 15R, AMDT 15A 

01/30/09 ...... OR REDMOND ...................... ROBERTS FIELD ................................ 9/3721 ILS OR LOC RWY 22, AMDT 2 

02/05/09 ...... OH COLUMBUS .................... RICKENBACKER INTL ........................ 9/4049 ILS RWY 5R, ILS RWY 5R (CAT 

II) AMDT 2 

02/04/09 ...... CA PALMDALE ..................... PALMDALE REGIONAL/USAF PLANT 

42.

9/4286 RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, ORIG–B 

[FR Doc. E9–3215 Filed 2–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM08–3–001; Order No. 

716–A] 

Mandatory Reliability Standard for 

Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination 

Issued February 19, 2009. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing. 

SUMMARY: In this order, the Commission 

denies the New York Independent 

System Operator, Inc.’s request for 

rehearing of Order No. 716, Mandatory 

Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant 

Interface Coordination. In Order No. 

716, the Commission approved as 

mandatory and enforceable the Nuclear 

Plant Interface Coordination Reliability 

Standard proposed by the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation. 

DATES: Effective Date: This order 

denying rehearing of the final rule will 

become effective March 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Gandolfo (Technical 

Information), Office of Electric 

Reliability, Division of Reliability 

Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6817. 

Richard M. Wartchow (Legal 

Information), Office of the General 

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8744. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

United States of America. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Before Commissioners: Jon 

Wellinghoff, Acting Chairman; Suedeen 

G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. 

Moeller. 

Order on Rehearing 

(Issued February 19, 2009.) 

1. In Order No. 716, the Commission 

approved as mandatory and enforceable 

the Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination 

Reliability Standard proposed by the 

North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC).1 In this order, the 

Commission denies the New York 

Independent System Operator, Inc.’s 

(New York ISO) request for rehearing of 

Order No. 716. 

Background 

2. On November 19, 2007, NERC, the 

Commission-certified Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO), 

submitted for Commission approval the 

Nuclear Reliability Standard, designated 

NUC–001–1. NERC supplemented the 

filing on December 11, 2007 to propose 

four related NERC glossary terms. 

3. In Order No. 716, the Commission 

approved the Nuclear Reliability 

Standard and related definitions. In 

doing so, the Commission approved the 

applicability provisions provided in 

Requirements R1 and R2, as clarified in 

NERC’s May 13, 2008 comments.2 The 

Nuclear Reliability Standard applies to 

‘‘transmission entities,’’ defined as ‘‘all 

entities that are responsible for 

providing services related to Nuclear 

Plant Interface Requirements (NPIRs)’’ 3

and lists 11 types of functional entities 

that could provide services related to 

NPIRs.4 In Order No. 716, the 

Commission accepted NERC’s 

clarification that the Nuclear Reliability 

Standard will apply to an entity that 

provides services relating to a nuclear 

plant generator operator’s nuclear plant 

licensing requirements on the later of 

one of two events: on the effective date, 

for entities in NERC’s compliance 

registry that already received notice in 

the form of a proposed NPIR, or on the 

8748 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 37 / Thursday, February 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

5Order No. 716, 125 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 68. 

6NOPR at P 29. 

7Order No. 716, 125 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 60. 

8New York ISO request for rehearing at 4, 13. 

9 Id. at 10, citing Mandatory Reliability Standards 

for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, at P 97 (2007): Each 

individual Reliability Standard will then identify 

the set of users, owners and operators of the BulkPower System that must comply with that standard. 

While the Commission may take prospective action 

against an entity that was not previously identified 

as a user, owner or operator through the NERC 

registration process once it has been added to the 

registry, the Commission will not assess penalties 

against an entity that has not previously been put 

on notice, through the NERC registration process, 

that it must comply with particular Reliability 

Standards. Under this process, if there is an entity 

that is not registered and NERC later discovers that 

the entity should have been subject to the 

Reliability Standards, NERC has the ability to add 

the entity, and possibly other entities of a similar 

class, to the registration list and to direct corrective 

action by that entity on a going-forward basis. The 

Commission believes that this should prevent an 

entity from being subject to a penalty for violating 

a Reliability Standard without prior notice that it 

must comply with that Reliability Standard. 

10See Order No. 716, 125 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 34, 

59. The Reliability Standards are enforceable 

against a particular entity once it is included on the 

compliance registry. See id. P 42–44. 

date that a proposed NPIR is provided 

by the nuclear plant generator operator.5

4. In its Nuclear Reliability Standard 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), 

the Commission proposed to accept the 

applicability provisions with the 

understanding that the Reliability 

Standard would be effective against a 

transmission entity when it executed an 

interface agreement with the nuclear 

plant generator operator.6 In its 

comments, NERC clarified its initial 

description of the applicability 

provisions and made clear that NUC– 

001–1 applied to transmission entities 

following receipt of the notification 

from the nuclear plant generator 

operator.7 Based on NERC’s and other 

commenters’ explanations, the 

Commission accepted the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard with the 

understanding that it would apply to 

transmission entities that provide 

services relating to nuclear plant 

licensing requirements on the 

implementation date, i.e., the NERC 

effective date for the Reliability 

Standard. On that date, the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard goes into effect 

immediately for transmission entities 

that have received notification from the 

nuclear plant generator, so long as the 

entity is registered on the NERC 

compliance registry. 

Request for Rehearing 

5. On November 17, 2008, New York 

ISO filed a request for rehearing of 

Order No. 716. New York ISO requests 

rehearing of the Commission’s 

determination that the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard applies to a 

transmission entity upon receipt of 

notification by a nuclear plant generator 

operator. New York ISO argues that this 

method for determining applicability 

violates due process because it (1) 

allows the nuclear plant generator 

operator to determine which entities are 

subject to the Reliability Standard, and 

(2) does not provide transmission 

entities that receive notice from a 

nuclear plant generator operator any 

‘‘clear recourse if they disagree with the 

nuclear plant generator operator’s 

determination that they are responsible 

for addressing a specific NPIR.’’ 8 New 

York ISO states the Commission’s ruling 

in Order No. 716 would allow an entity 

to become subject to the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard outside the NERC 

Rules of Procedure registration process, 

and place such an entity in ‘‘an 

untenable position’’ if it disagrees with 

the nuclear plant generator operator that 

it is responsible for providing services 

related to a specific NPIR. New York 

ISO, therefore, requests that the 

Commission grant rehearing and hold 

that the Nuclear Reliability Standard is 

not applicable to a prospective 

transmission entity upon being 

approached by a nuclear plant generator 

operator with a NPIR until the entity 

consents to providing services, or until 

it has been found responsible for 

providing services by NERC or a 

Regional Entity, through a dispute 

resolution process. 

6. New York ISO contends that 

applying the Reliability Standard to an 

entity once it has been approached by 

a nuclear plant generator operator with 

a proposed NPIR is at odds with the 

Commission’s decision in Order No. 

693, which approved the NERC 

compliance registry process to 

determine those users, owners and 

operators of the Bulk-Power System that 

must comply with the Reliability 

Standards.9 According to New York 

ISO, this approach effectively gives a 

nuclear plant generator operator the 

authority to determine the applicability 

of the Nuclear Reliability Standard 

(rather than NERC or a Regional Entity) 

without providing any clear avenue of 

appeal (as would be available if the 

compliance registry process were used). 

New York ISO claims that this is an 

unexplained change in the 

Commission’s approach to applicability. 

7. New York ISO would find that an 

entity is responsible for providing 

services, and subject to the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard, if it consents to 

provide services once it has been 

approached by a nuclear plant generator 

operator. Alternatively, NERC or a 

Regional Entity could find the entity 

responsible for providing services. New 

York ISO proposes that, to minimize 

delays, an entity could be found to 

constructively consent if it fails to 

timely invoke dispute resolution 

procedures. 

8. In order to resolve disputes over 

whether an entity approached by a 

nuclear plant generator operator is 

responsible for providing services 

relating to a NPIR, New York ISO 

proposes a process to govern the 

identification of transmission entities 

and the implementation of interface 

agreements. New York ISO states that 

the lack of a clear dispute resolution 

process is unjust and unreasonable, 

given the Commission’s determination 

that ‘‘an entity is subject to NUC–001– 

1 at the time that it is approached by a 

nuclear plant generator operator about 

providing NPIR-related services.’’ New 

York ISO states that the Commission 

should implement a dispute resolution 

process that adopts the existing 

registration dispute procedures, found 

in section 501 of NERC’s Rules of 

Procedure, which contain specific 

timelines for filing and resolution of the 

dispute. 

9. In addition, New York ISO states 

that in Order No. 716, the Commission 

should have clarified that an entity that 

becomes subject to the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard would have a 

reasonable time (such as 90 days) to 

implement an interface agreement with 

a nuclear plant generator operator after 

it either agrees that it is responsible for 

an NPIR or has been held responsible 

for providing services to meet an NPIR 

by NERC or a Regional Entity. 

Discussion 

10. The Commission denies New York 

ISO’s request for rehearing. NERC 

previously clarified the applicability 

provisions in response to the NOPR 

request for comment on whether the 

Nuclear Reliability Standard is 

enforceable against a transmission entity 

upon execution of an interface 

agreement or at some earlier time.10

Several of the commenters supported 

NERC’s clarified proposal, which was 

ultimately approved in Order No. 716, 

while others, including the ISO/RTO 

Council, expressed concerns that are 

similar to those raised in New York 

ISO’s request for rehearing, and which 

the Commission rejected. Nothing in 

New York ISO’s request for rehearing 

requires the Commission to revisit that 

determination. 

11. Order No. 716 approved NERC’s 

proposal to make the Nuclear Reliability 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 37 / Thursday, February 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 8749 

11 Id. P 21. 

12 Id. P 68 (‘‘This [approach] is consistent with 

other Reliability Standards where an entity is 

subject to a Reliability Standard based on the 

factual determination of whether it operates certain 

facilities or provides a certain service, not based on 

the consent of the entity.’’). 

13NOPR at P 24 n. 21 (citing Order No. 693 at 

P 92–96; NERC Statement of Compliance Registry 

Criteria). 

14NUC–001–1, section 4.2 (Applicability); see 

also Order No. 716, 125 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 21 

(‘‘While the Commission prefers that Reliability 

Standards apply to all entities within a functional 

category defined in the Registry Criteria, it has 

approved appropriate limitations incorporated into 

an applicability section.’’). 

15Order No. 716, 125 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 68. 

16 Id. P 65–66. 

17NERC Rules of Procedure, section 504. 

18Any person that is ‘‘directly and materially 

affected’’ by Bulk-Power System reliability may 

request an interpretation of a Reliability Standard. 

NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A, Reliability 

Standards Development Procedure (2008). 

19NERC Rules of Procedure, sections 402(6) and 

409–11 (establishing appeals process). 

20Order No. 716, 125 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 28, 65. 

Standard applicable to transmission 

entities once they are notified by a 

nuclear plant generator operator that 

they are responsible for providing 

services needed to support nuclear plant 

licensing requirements as a result of the 

generator operator’s delivery of a 

proposed NPIR. The Commission 

rejected arguments that use of the term 

transmission entities is inconsistent 

with the NERC registry process.11

Furthermore, nothing in Order No. 716 

supports New York ISO’s suggestion 

that an entity becomes subject to the 

Nuclear Reliability Standard outside the 

NERC registration process. As with all 

other Reliability Standards, the NERC 

registry process determines whether an 

entity is a user, owner or operator of the 

Bulk-Power System, and, therefore, is 

required to comply with the Reliability 

Standards. The question whether an 

entity must comply with a particular 

Reliability Standard—the relevant issue 

in this proceeding—is resolved based on 

the provisions of the Reliability 

Standard and the factual circumstances 

surrounding a given user, owner or 

operator of the Bulk-Power System.12

12. Contrary to New York ISO’s 

position, the issues New York ISO seeks 

to raise are outside the scope of the 

registry process established in the NERC 

Rules of Procedure. As discussed in the 

NOPR, NERC’s registry process 

establishes procedures to identify and 

register owners, operators and users of 

the Bulk-Power System, including 

organizations performing functions 

listed in the definition of transmission 

entities, generators that are material to 

the Reliable Operation of the BulkPower System, and organizations that 

should be subject to the Reliability 

Standards.13 NERC’s decision to register 

an entity, because it meets one or more 

of the functions established in the 

registry criteria, establishes that the 

entity must comply with the universe of 

Reliability Standards that are applicable 

to the functional classes in which the 

entity is registered. However, NERC’s 

registration does not determine whether 

an entity must comply with each and 

every Reliability Standard applicable to 

the functional class. Whether an entity 

must comply with a particular 

Reliability Standard, such as NUC 

–001–1, is determined based on the 

language of the Reliability Standard. For 

the Nuclear Reliability Standard, the 

primary factual issues to be addressed 

concern whether an entity is responsible 

for providing services related to 

NPIRs.14 Order No. 716 explained: 

NERC and others have made clear that 

NUC–001–1 was intended to apply to 

transmission entities following receipt of 

notification from the nuclear plant generator 

operator, rather than after execution of the 

interface agreement. The applicability of 

NUC–001–1 is determined by the function 

performed by the entity. * * * This is 

consistent with other Reliability Standards 

where an entity is subject to a Reliability 

Standard based on the factual determination 

of whether it operates certain facilities or 

provides a certain service, not based on the 

consent of the entity.15

13. Industry comments on the NOPR 

indicate that the nuclear plant generator 

operator is in the best position to 

interpret nuclear plant licensing 

requirements and system needs affecting 

operations, based on the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission requirements to 

perform grid stability studies, 

documented in plant licensing 

materials.16 Industry representatives 

concluded that NUC–001–1 should be 

enforceable against transmission service 

providers whose commitments to 

provide services form part of the basis 

for the original plant license. They also 

concluded that nuclear plant licensees 

and transmission service providers are 

already obliged to provide assurances 

with respect to the capability and 

stability of offsite power sources for the 

nuclear plant. Thus, we find appropriate 

NERC’s reliance on nuclear plant 

generator operators to identify the 

transmission entities that are 

responsible for providing services 

relating to NPIRs. 

14. The Nuclear Reliability Standard 

applies to transmission entities that are 

registered with NERC and that are 

responsible for providing services 

related to NPIRs consistent with the 

language of NUC–001–1. Thus, contrary 

to New York ISO’s assertion, this 

process is consistent with the NERC 

registration process, which provides for 

adequate review of NERC’s 

determinations. An entity that is subject 

to registration for providing services to 

a nuclear power plant may appeal the 

registration determination.17 Entities 

who are unsure whether NUC–001–1 

applies to a given set of circumstances 

may seek clarification through a request 

for an interpretation from NERC.18

Finally, an entity that believes it has 

been unfairly found to have violated 

NUC–001–1 may appeal NERC’s 

determination to this Commission.19

15. We do not find that the 

identification process established in the 

Nuclear Reliability Standard improperly 

delegates authority to nuclear plant 

generator operators. Under NUC–001–1, 

nuclear plant generator operators must 

identify transmission entities by 

providing proposed NPIRs to 

transmission entities. Such 

identification is no different than the 

provision of any factual information 

under the Reliability Standards and 

represents no delegation of authority. 

Nuclear plant generator operators have 

no discretion to select transmission 

entities, and are subject to penalties if 

they fail to identify an entity providing 

services covered by NUC–001–1. As 

documented in Order No. 716, the 

entities providing services to support 

nuclear plant licensing requirements are 

known to the nuclear plant generator 

operators and such entities are familiar 

with their role in providing services, as 

a result of past efforts to negotiate 

services needed to meet nuclear plant 

licensing requirements.20 On rehearing, 

we affirm our finding that no additional 

consent is necessary for a transmission 

entity to become subject to the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard. 

16. In its request for rehearing, New 

York ISO objects to what it characterizes 

as the Commission’s determination that 

a transmission entity may become 

subject to the Nuclear Reliability 

Standard, and any resulting 

enforcement action including penalties, 

upon being ‘‘approached’’ by a nuclear 

plant generator operator. We find above 

that speculation as to whether an entity 

may be in violation of the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard if it fails to execute 

an interface agreement under such 

circumstances to be beyond the scope of 

this proceeding. However, we 

emphasize, as discussed above, that the 

record in this proceeding demonstrated 

that potential transmission entities 

should be familiar with their roles as 

providing services to support nuclear 

8750 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 37 / Thursday, February 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

21 Id. P 82. 

22 Id. P 69. 

23 Id. P 82. 

24See discussion at id. P 75–80. 

25The Commission declines to address in this 

order the proper resolution of a dispute concerning 

an entity, not currently responsible for providing 

services relating to a generator’s nuclear plant 

licensing requirements, that is approached by a 

nuclear plant generator operator seeking to procure 

such services. Such issues are better resolved based 

on a case-by-case review of a complete factual 

record, detailing any reliability concerns. 26Order No. 716, 125 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 75. 

licensing requirements.21 The Final 

Rule reflected the Commission’s 

intention that the approved approach to 

applicability would resolve concerns 

that entities supplying services related 

to nuclear plant licensing requirements 

would balk at executing an interface 

agreement, if execution made them 

subject to NUC–001–1.22 Furthermore, 

given the appeal rights provided for in 

the NERC enforcement process, we do 

not believe that an entity that disagrees 

with its role in providing such services 

will be subject to enforcement without 

recourse. The Commission declines at 

the rulemaking phase to address issues 

concerning individual entities that may 

be approached to provide services 

relating to nuclear plant licensing 

requirements. Such issues are better 

addressed in a proceeding providing a 

record detailing the circumstances of a 

potential transmission entity’s 

registration. 

17. We also reject New York ISO’s 

request for an allotted period of time to 

implement an interface agreement. 

Order No. 716 stated, ‘‘Given that the 

parties have already been able to agree 

to the services needed to meet NRC 

licensing requirements, the same parties 

should be able to successfully identify 

the services provided, confirm that they 

address NRC criteria for off-site power 

and system limits, and document such 

services in an auditable format 

consistent with the NUC–001–1 

Requirements.’’ 23 Thus, it should not be 

a problem for these parties to write up 

existing arrangements in the format 

required by the Nuclear Reliability 

Standard. In addition, in cases where 

there is no immediate risk to grid 

reliability, the Commission approved 

NERC’s proposal that it may order 

mediation as a remedial measure.24 For 

these reasons, we find that it is 

unnecessary to incorporate additional 

time for parties to negotiate and 

implement an interface agreement.25

18. In addition, the Commission in 

Order No. 716 rejected calls for formal 

incorporation of dispute resolution 

procedures to resolve registration and 

contract negotiation disputes and, 

instead, left the use of such procedures 

to NERC’s discretion as a mitigation 

option in the event nuclear plant 

generator operators and transmission 

entities fail to agree.26 Given our 

affirmation of the determination that no 

additional consent is necessary to 

become subject to the Nuclear 

Reliability Standard, we likewise affirm 

our determination that additional 

dispute resolution procedures to 

address a failure to consent are not 

necessary. 

The Commission orders: 

New York ISO’s request for rehearing 

is hereby denied, as discussed in the 

body of this order. 

By the Commission. Commissioner 

Kelliher is not participating. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–3964 Filed 2–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

32 CFR Part 706 

Certifications and Exemptions Under 

the International Regulations for 

Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

is amending its certifications and 

exemptions under the International 

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at 

Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that 

the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) 

has determined that USS WAYNE E. 

MEYER (DDG 108) is a vessel of the 

Navy which, due to its special 

construction and purpose, cannot fully 

comply with certain provisions of the 72 

COLREGS without interfering with its 

special function as a naval ship. The 

intended effect of this rule is to warn 

mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS 

apply. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

26, 2009 and is applicable beginning 

February 11, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Commander M. Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. 

Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), 

Office of the Judge Advocate General, 

Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson 

Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy 

Yard, DC 20374–5066, telephone 

number: 202–685–5040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 

1605, the Department of the Navy 

amends 32 CFR Part 706. 

This amendment provides notice that 

the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), 

under authority delegated by the 

Secretary of the Navy, has certified that 

USS WAYNE E. MEYER (DDG 108) is a 

vessel of the Navy which, due to its 

special construction and purpose, 

cannot fully comply with the following 

specific provisions of 72 COLREGS 

without interfering with its special 

function as a naval ship: Annex I, 

paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the 

placement of the masthead light or 

lights above and clear of all other lights 

and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 

2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical 

placement of task lights; Annex I, 

paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the 

location of the forward masthead light 

in the forward quarter of the ship, and 

the horizontal distance between the 

forward and after masthead lights; and 

Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to 

placement of task lights not less than 

two meters from the fore and aft 

centerline of the ship in the athwartship 

direction. The Deputy Assistant Judge 

Advocate General (Admiralty and 

Maritime Law) has also certified that the 

lights involved are located in closest 

possible compliance with the applicable 

72 COLREGS requirements. 

Moreover, it has been determined, in 

accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 

701, that publication of this amendment 

for public comment prior to adoption is 

impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to public interest since it is 

based on technical findings that the 

placement of lights on this vessel in a 

manner differently from that prescribed 

herein will adversely affect the vessel’s 

ability to perform its military functions. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), and 

Vessels. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND 

EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE 

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR 

PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 

1972 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 706 

continues to read as follow: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 

■ 2. Section 706.2 is amended as 

follows: 

■ A. In Table Four, Paragraph 15 by 

adding, in numerical order, the