[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76415-76417]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31064]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0174; FRL-9764-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Redesignation of the West Virginia Portion of the
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Associated
Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) requested that the West Virginia portion of the Huntington-
Ashland, WV-KY-OH fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
nonattainment area (``Huntington-Ashland Area'' or ``Area'') be
redesignated as attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In this rulemaking
action, EPA is approving the 1997 annual PM2.5 redesignation
request for the West Virginia portion of the Area. EPA is also
approving the maintenance plan SIP revision that the State submitted in
conjunction with its redesignation request. The maintenance plan
provides for continued attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation of the West Virginia portion of
the Area. The maintenance plan includes an insignificance determination
for the onroad motor vehicle contribution of PM2.5, nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the
West Virginia portion of the Area for purposes of transportation
conformity. EPA is approving West Virginia's insignificance
determination for transportation conformity. EPA is also finding that
the Area continues to attain the standard. This rulemaking action
approving the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS redesignation request,
maintenance plan, and insignificance determination for transportation
conformity for the West Virginia portion of the Area is based on EPA's
determination that the Area has met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0174. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE.,
Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Huntington-Ashland Area is composed of Cabell and Wayne
Counties and the Graham Tax District in Mason County in West Virginia
(West Virginia portion of the Area); Boyd County and a portion of
Lawrence County in Kentucky; and Lawrence and Scioto Counties and
portions of Adams and Gallia Counties in Ohio. On November 15, 2012 (77
FR 68076), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the
State of West Virginia. Pursuant to sections 107(d)(3) and 175A of the
CAA, the NPR proposed approval of West Virginia's redesignation
request, a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the
West Virginia portion of the Area that provides for continued
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation, and the insignificance determination for
transportation conformity for the West Virginia portion of the Area.
The formal SIP revision was submitted by WVDEP on June 30, 2011. In a
separate action, EPA approved the base year emissions inventory on
December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73544) meeting the requirements of section
172(c)(3) of the CAA. Other specific details of West Virginia's
redesignation request, the associated maintenance plan SIP revision and
insignificance determination, and the rationales for EPA's proposed
actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No
public comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the redesignation request, maintenance plan, and
insignificance determination for transportation conformity for the West
Virginia portion of the Area that was submitted by WVDEP on June 30,
2011 because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has
evaluated West Virginia's redesignation request, and determined that it
meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. Approval of this redesignation request will change the legal
designation of the West Virginia portion of the Area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is
approving the associated maintenance plan for the West Virginia portion
of the Area, submitted on June 30, 2011, as a revision to the West
Virginia SIP because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA. EPA is also approving the transportation conformity insignificance
determination submitted by West Virginia for this Area in conjunction
with its redesignation request.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. A
delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a
redesignation to attainment, which eliminates CAA obligations that
would otherwise apply. The immediate effective date for this action is
authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that
rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' The purpose
of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give
affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare
before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not
create any new regulatory requirements such that

affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Rather, today's rule relieves West Virginia of the obligation
to comply with nonattainment-related planning requirements for this
PM2.5 Area pursuant to Part D of the CAA. For these reasons,
EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this action to become
effective on the date of publication of this notice.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 26, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving the redesignation request, maintenance
plan, and transportation conformity insignificance determination for
the West Virginia portion of the Area may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 18, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for the 1997 annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan, West
Virginia portion of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Area at the end of
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable       submittal    EPA approval date    Additional  explanation
            revision               geographic area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 annual PM2.5 Maintenance    Cabell and Wayne        6/30/11  12/28/12 [Insert
 Plan for Huntington-Ashland WV-  Counties, and the                page number where
 KY-OH Area.                      Graham Tax                       the document
                                  District in Mason                begins].
                                  County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 81.349 is amended by revising the PM2.5 (Annual
NAAQS) table entry for the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Area to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.349  West Virginia

* * * * *

                   West Virginia--PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Designation \a\
        Designated area         ----------------------------------------
                                   Date \1\              Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
Cabell County..................     12/28/12  Attainment.
Mason County (part)............     12/28/12  Attainment.
    Graham Tax District........
Wayne County...................     12/28/12  Attainment.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except
  otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-31064 Filed 12-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Meeting with American Forest and Paper Association and EPA to discuss conditions of use for chemicals undergoing prioritization

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On December 11th, 2019, EPA held a conference call with the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) to discuss paper related uses of chemicals undergoing prioritization. EPA provided a general overview of its process for gathering use information under TSCA section 6 and the prioritization and risk evaluation processes. AF&PA discussed feedback from its members about phthalates and several other chemicals designated as high priority. AF&PA explained these chemicals' uses or lack thereof in paper and the paper production process.

Attendees
EPA:
Alex Smith
Claire Brisse
Doug Parsons
Eileen Sheehan
Jordan Garbin
Kelly Summers
Marc Edmonds

AF&PA:
Stewart Holm


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22727-22728]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08639]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC20-51-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
Inc., Guzman Energy, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act, et al. of Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG20-116-000.
    Applicants: Elm Branch Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: NOTICE OF SELF-CERTIFICATION OF EXEMPT WHOLESALE
GENERATOR STATUS.
    Filed Date: 4/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200416-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/20.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER12-1316-005; ER11-2753-006.
    Applicants: Silver State Solar Power North, LLC, Cedar Point Wind,
LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Enbridge MBR
Companies.
    Filed Date: 4/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200416-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/20

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1794-004.
    Applicants: Innovative Solar 42, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Innovative
Solar 42, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1061-001.
    Applicants: Turquoise Nevada LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deferral of Filing of First
Amendment to Amended and Restated SFA to be effective 2/22/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200416-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1582-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE; Defer Eff Date of
Previously-Accepted Resource Dispatchability Revisions to be effective
1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200416-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1583-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: RS 326--LGIA between
Colstrip Transmission Owners and Broadview Solar II, LLC to be
effective 4/9/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1584-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Niagara Mohawk E&P Agreement
(SA 2531) between NMPC and NY Transco to be effective 3/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1585-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-04-17_SA 3475 ATXI-City
of Roses Wind Energy GIA (J848) to be effective 4/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1586-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 5615
and First Revised ICSA, SA No. 5500; Queue No. AC1-216 to be effective
3/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1587-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Columbiana PV II LGIA Filing
to be effective 4/8/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1588-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Broadview Solar II LLC LGIA
to be effective 4/9/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1589-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-04-17_SA 3476 ATC-Grant
County Solar GIA (J947) to be effective 4/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1590-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the PJM Tariff,
OA and RAA re Load Management Testing Requirements to be effective 6/
16/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1591-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Rate Schedule FERC
No. 279 between Tri-State and Niobrara to be effective 4/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1592-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-04-17 Clarify RA
Obligations from CCE3 Initiative and related matters to be effective 7/
1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1593-000.
    Applicants: Highlander Solar Energy Station 1, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Highlander Solar Energy
Station 1 MBR to be effective 4/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200417-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/20.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 17, 2020.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08639 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Contractor Conflicts of Interest (Renewal)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests renewal of control number 2030-0023 (ICR 1550.12): Contractor Conflicts of Interest (Renewal).
Short Characterization

The collection of this information is required to ensure that the Agency can effectively identify, evaluate, and take appropriate action concerning contractor conflicts of interest (COI). EPA contractors are required to disclose any actual or potential COI with regard to their employees, corporate affiliations, and business relationships. Contractors will be required to maintain a database of business relationships and report information to EPA on either an annual basis or when work is ordered under an Agency contract. Additionally, under some contracts, the contractor must request written approval from the contracting officer to enter a proposed contract subject to the restrictions of EPA's Limitation of Future Contracting Clause that can be found at CFR 48 1552.209-74.
Actions to Comply with Terms of Clearance
Previous Terms of Clearance: In accordance with 5 CFR 1320, the information collection is approved for three years. As terms of clearance, however, the agency is required to closely track the frequency with which this collection is used and (1) submit a request for revision if the actual burden exceeds the expected level approved in this ICR; and (2) ensure that the burden reflected in the renewal is accurate.
EPA received ICR renewal approval for control number 2030-0023 (ICR 1550.11) December 31, 2018, with Terms of Clearance, for a three-year period. (ICR Reference number<PHONE_NUMBER>-001.) The existing ICR is set to expire on December 31, 2021. EPA's efforts to comply with the Terms of Clearance are discussed below.
Under the ICR's Terms of Clearance, EPA was required to (1) submit a request for revision if the actual burden exceeds the expected level approved in this ICR; and (2) ensure that the burden reflected in the renewal is accurate.
(1) The actual number of COI plans increased from 45 in the previous filing to 56 in the current filing.  (2) The program office has worked closely with EPA's Regulatory Support Division to ensure the accuracy of this information and this filing.
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.5, requires contracting officers to analyze acquisitions to identify and evaluate potential COI, and to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant COI before contract award.  EPA's information collection is required to fulfill the requirements of the FAR, protect the Government's interests at contract award, and ensure this protection extends throughout the performance of Agency contracts.

FAR Subpart 2.1 states organizational conflict of interest means "that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person's objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage." Depending on the contract terms, EPA requires the contractor to either certify annually or certify each time work is ordered under the contract that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge and belief, all actual or potential organizational COI have been reported to EPA. If the contractor cannot so certify, the firm must provide a disclosure statement describing all relevant information concerning any past, present, or planned interests bearing on whether it may have a COI. The contracting officer and advisers will use this information to evaluate potential conflicts and to determine the appropriate action necessary to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the disclosed conflict.Summary of Comments submitted on Federal Register Notice
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
EPA staff will use the COI plan and certifications to ensure contractors are complying with EPA's requirements for detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest. If contractors submit a certification stating they have no conflicts of interest, the contracting officer reviews the certificate and retains the information in the official contract file.  If contractors disclose information showing they have an actual or potential COI the contracting officers and advisers (subject matter or technical experts, legal advisors, and procurement analysts) carefully review and analyze the disclosure to determine the appropriate course of action.

Contracting officers document their determinations in the official contract file where they also retain the original information collected.

In general, the information collected, and the determinations made will be used by the Agency to ensure that contractors and the EPA are adequately addressing COI concerns, and that the Agency is making determinations consistent with the exercise of common sense, good judgment, and sound discretion to protect its programs.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
Contractor COI information is collected via electronic mail and is stored in the contractor's file in the EPA Acquisition System (EAS), which is the electronic contract-writing system used at EPA.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
The collection of information is not duplicative of information otherwise accessible to the Agency. The data is unique to each firm's contract or order for work under a contract and is not available from any other source. EPA provisions have the same general objectives of identifying, mitigating, and avoiding COI as FAR Subpart 9.5. However, unlike the FAR, the EPA provisions include reporting and certification requirements to ensure that actual and potential conflicts of interest are reviewed not only prior to contract award, but also during the period of contract performance and after contract performance to ensure enforcement actions are not prejudiced. This is the only way that EPA can evaluate whether a contractor's work efforts, which may be initiated during the EPA contract performance period or in some cases, after contract completion, may present an unacceptable risk to the Agency.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.
Based on fiscal year 2018, 2019, and 2020 figures, approximately 40% of the Agency's contracts are awarded to small businesses. Only the minimum information necessary to ensure that conflicts of interest do not exist is requested. Because the information requested is vital to monitoring contractor performance under Agency contracts, separate or simplified procedures cannot be developed for small businesses.

EPA considered alternatives to the information collection, such as establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or simplifying the requirements for small entities. EPA also considered exempting small entities from all or part of the rule. However, separate or further simplified requirements are not practical, because the stated objectives cannot be met under such alternatives. An undisclosed COI poses the same risk to EPA whether it is a conflict involving a large or small business contractor. EPA believes the information collection, along with other established internal controls within the Agency, will prevent conflicts of interest that may jeopardize future actions.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
Depending on the type of contract, this information collection requires contractors to certify, either annually or for individual work orders, that they have no COI. If the contractor detects an actual or potential conflict, then the firm must disclose the nature of the conflict. The annual certification requirement is possible where the nature of the work the contractor is performing is sufficiently known in advance to allow certifying for an entire year.  More frequently, EPA requires its contractors to certify or disclose with each order for work under the contract. This requirement, for reporting when specific work is ordered, is essential under contracts with a wide scope where it is not possible to know in advance the exact type of work needed or the exact location the work will be performed. For example, most Superfund contracts are performed at multiple sites and there is little or no advance notice of where such work will be assigned because of changing cleanup priorities.  Therefore, a contractor is in a better position to identify its conflicts or potential conflicts when work is ordered, as compared to when the basic contract is awarded.

There is also no set schedule for submission of requests for authorization to enter a contract for non-EPA work cited in the Limitation of Future Contracting clause. This clause identifies outside work that could pose a significant COI with work performed for EPA and may impair EPA contractor performance or harm enforcement actions. These requests are required to be submitted to the contracting officer when a contractor wants to request authorization to enter such high-risk contracts.  Such requests are essential to provide EPA with the opportunity to protect its enforcement actions from an unacceptable risk of prejudice before it occurs.  This is essential to protecting the Government interests.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:
::	requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
	N/A
::	requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
	N/A
::	requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
	N/A
::	requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
	N/A
::	in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study; requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
	N/A
::	that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
	N/A
::	requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
All collection activities described within this ICR do not meet or exceed any of the provisions requiring special justification per 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported. Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (86 FR 18527) on April 9, 2021 during a 60-day comment period ending June 8, 2021.  There were no relevant public comments pertaining to this subject matter.
To determine contractor burden associated with the information collection identified in this request, the following vendors were contacted but did not respond; therefore, the estimated burden figures from the existing ICR are considered to still be applicable.

The firms contacted are:
Name
Phone
Affiliation
Dalton Stupack
509-578-3150
Leidos Innovation Corp., Lrg Bus
Vijay Mallepalli
409-983-4575
Chemtex, Small Business

The process each firm used for tracking contract work, reviewing the scope of work, and certifying there are no conflicts or disclosing the nature of an actual or potential conflict were virtually identical.  The amount of effort involved varied on the size of the business, the number of affiliates, and the amount of contracting they do.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
EPA does not provide payment or gifts to respondents for this collection.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.
Some of the information submitted in response to our information request is confidential business information (CBI).  The Agency will protect CBI from release, and will disclose it only to the extent consistent with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Agency regulations, and the contract terms.

This information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1978 and OMB Circular A-108, as revised and incorporated into OMB Circular A-130.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
We have identified no sensitive questions in this collection.
**Sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 are being updated per OMB guidance, however EPA does not anticipate any significant data shifts from the previous approved filing.  This information will be updated completely in the second filing as information is still being collected and updated. ***
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
::	Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
::	If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
::	Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.
*EPA is aggregating cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 into a single table per OMB guidance.
Information Requested
        Data Items, including recordkeeping requirements
Data to be collected includes: (1) certification on either an annual basis or when work is ordered that conflicts have been disclosed or that none exist; (2) disclosure of actual and potential conflicts of interest under the contract; and (3) requests for authorization to enter into a certain future contract work, cited in the "Limitation of Future Contracting Clause" in the applicable contract.

The recordkeeping requirements associated with this request include corporate recordkeeping consistent with a contractor's system for identifying, mitigating, and preventing conflicts of interest as described in its COI plan submitted to EPA. This COI recordkeeping includes maintaining a database of corporate clients and contracts in order to identify potential conflicts and maintain records of disclosures of conflicts to demonstrate compliance with a contractor's COI plan. NOTE: The term "database" as used in this section includes any system which permits a contractor to search its records for COI and may be manual or automated. The critical function of any database is that it gives the respondent the capability to identify any past, present, and future work which may be in conflict.

        Respondent Activities
Properly responding to EPA's COI disclosure requests requires the contractor to first maintain a list of all current contracts they are working under and the nature of the work they are performing under the contract. Then, the contractor must analyze interrelations between the work the firm will be performing under the current contract and any work performed under other contracts to understand whether the new work would cause the contractor to be unable to render impartial assistance or advice to EPA, impair the firm's objectivity, or give the firm an unfair competitive advantage.  If the firm discovers no conflicts of interest, then it certifies this fact to the contracting officer. If the firm discovers an actual or potential problem, then the facts of the situation will be reported to the contracting officer for his or her response.

Collection Schedule
Depending on the type of contract, this information collection requires contractors to certify, either annually or for individual work orders, that they have no COI. If the contractor detects an actual or potential conflict, then the firm must disclose the nature of the conflict. The annual certification requirement is possible where the nature of the work the contractor is performing is sufficiently known in advance to allow certifying for an entire year.  More frequently, EPA requires its contractors to certify or disclose with each order for work under the contract. This requirement, for reporting when specific work is ordered, is essential under contracts with a wide scope where it is not possible to know in advance the exact type of work needed or the exact location the work will be performed. For example, most Superfund contracts are performed at multiple sites and there is little or no advance notice of where such work will be assigned because of changing cleanup priorities.  Therefore, a contractor is in a better position to identify its conflicts or potential conflicts when work is ordered, as compared to when the basic contract is awarded.

There is also no set schedule for submission of requests for authorization to enter a contract for non-EPA work cited in the "Limitation of Future Contracting Clause." This clause identifies outside work that could pose a significant COI with work performed for EPA and may impair EPA contractor performance or harm enforcement actions. These requests are required to be submitted to the contracting officer when a contractor wants to request authorization to enter such high-risk contracts.  Such requests are essential to provide EPA with the opportunity to protect its enforcement actions from an unacceptable risk of prejudice before it occurs.  This is essential to protecting the Government interests.

Estimating Respondent Burden
Respondent burden in complying with the COI information collection is broken down into the following tasks.
 Prepare COI Plan (one-time burden)
 Create a Database (one-time burden)
 Storage and Maintenance of Records (recurring burden)
 Search Data Base Records for Possible COI (recurring burden)
 Identify Potential COI, Record Decision, and Notify EPA (recurring burden)
 Request Approval for Future Contract (recurring)

Onetime costs, such as COI plan development and creation of a database will only be incurred by contractors and subcontractors who have never contracted with EPA.
Although the information collection requirements for small and large business are the same, EPA's consultations with small businesses confirmed that the workload is generally less for small businesses because they have less complex organizational structures, fewer contracts, and less data to maintain and search than large businesses.
While the overall makeup of EPA contracts is 40% small business and 60% large business; it is difficult to accurately predict how that split will apply to respondents for this ICR.  As mentioned, the COI process is more cumbersome for large businesses because they have more contracts and more business relationships. Therefore, they are also more likely to have a COI than a small business. Given the uncertainty involved, we determined it would be most prudent to use the estimated response times for large businesses in this ICR's burden calculation.
It is anticipated that some of the work associated with COIs would be done by contractors in the normal course of business as a customary and usual business practice (CBP), such as maintaining records of who they do business with. The CBP in this ICR are based on knowledge of the business practices of anticipated respondents and from a review of information received from EPA contractors who provided data in response to our consultations.  In our burden calculations, the burden attributable to CBPs is subtracted from the overall total burden to show the new estimated burden anticipated for this requirement.  The calculations for CBP are described below for each category of effort.
Estimating Respondent Costs
Estimating Labor Costs
For all tasks, based on historical data, it is calculated that 25% of the effort would be managerial, 50% would be technical, and 25% would be administrative. The mean hourly labor rates are from the May 2019 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates published by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. For business/financial management the rate was $67.17; for a conservation scientist (technical) the rate was $31.31; and for administrative staff the rate was $17.91. To calculate a fully loaded rate, an overhead of 100% was added to the hourly rate.
Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs
Respondents to this information collection activity are Agency contractors performing work for the Agency which requires protection from conflicts of interest. The number of EPA contractors who will be required to provide information under this collection is approximately 56 and is derived from the number of COI Plans submitted for review in 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Analysis of Annual Respondent Hourly Burden Per-Activity:
          Prepare COI (COI) Plan. (Non-recurring one-time effort) In its initial request, EPA estimated 1,170 hours per plan as a non-recurring one-time cost, because once contractors have prepared a COI Plan, it will only be necessary to update and/or modify it. We continue to utilize the estimate of 1,170 hours per plan for any firms who have never previously done business with EPA or been a prime or subcontractor on a Federal Government contract involving COI provisions. For new respondents, we retain the original CBP of 50%.  This results in an estimate of 585 hours for each of the estimated 11 new respondents.  To allocate the 585 hours across the five-year period of performance we have divided the 585 by 5 to arrive at an average 117 hours per respondent per year to prepare the initial COI plan. Total burden per year for the 11 new respondents is 1,287.
                                       ANNUAL BURDEN:	117 hours per respondent
          Create Data Base. (Non-recurring one-time effort) Our estimate of 700 hours reflects EPA's best estimate based on information received from respondents.  The CPB for this line item is 80%, resulting in total hours of 140. This line item is also a non-recurring one-time burden. Also, as described in task 1 above, these hours are allocated over a five-year period of performance and only for new respondents, which is anticipated to be 11 per year. Therefore, our estimate includes 140 hours per response for new respondents, divided by 5 years which equals 28 hours per year, times 11 respondents or 308 total burden hours per year for all new respondents.

                                        ANNUAL BURDEN:	28 hours per respondent

          Storage and Maintenance of Records. The estimate for storing and maintaining records is 154 hours per respondent, per year.  Therefore, a total of 154 hours of storage and maintenance of records activity is associated with this collection request.

                                 ANNUAL BURDEN:        154 hours per respondent
          Search Data Base Records for Possible COI.  The number of times work is ordered under an EPA contract varies greatly; however, for purposes of this ICR we retain the estimate, based on historical data that 75 work orders will be issued each year. Of this number, approximately 16% will be for the same Superfund site for which a previous work order has been issued. Since contractors are not required to submit more than one certification or disclosure per Superfund site, then it is expected that contractors will only do certifications or disclosures for 63 work orders per year.

The average time required to perform each search is estimated to be 8 hours. In our interviews with contractors, we found firms typically perform a key word search (key words such as type of work, location, names of affiliates) in an automated database.  The database search would take less than an hour; however, an employee with the appropriate expertise must review the search findings for accuracy.  Eight hours includes the database search time, ensuring the findings are appropriate, and possibly querying contractor project staff as well as records.  Based on interviews with contractors, the CBP for this line item is 10%.  Therefore, the hours associated with this collection request for data base searches is 7 hours.
                              ANNUAL BURDEN:	7 x 63 = 441 hours per respondent
          Identify Potential COI, Record Decision. Execute Work Order or the Annual Certification, and Notify the EPA of the Decision. This category reflects the management and technical activity in the search and certification effort that a contractor must perform. In accordance with the contract terms, the contractor is required to submit either a onetime certification or individual certifications when work is ordered under the contract. Of the 63 worker orders requiring certification or disclosure, approximately 17% of cases (11 work orders per year) will qualify as needing only an annual certification.  The remaining 52 orders will require individual certification or disclosure.

Our estimate is 28 hours to complete an annual certification (in 11 cases) and 4 hours to complete a per work order review (in 52 cases). The CBP factor for this task is very low because most of this effort is associated solely with EPA requirements. The estimate of 10% for CBP is associated with an identification of a COI on a private contract which requires management attention but may not require the documentation and certification process required by EPA.
                            ANNUAL BURDEN:	11 x 28 = 308 (annual certification)
                                       52 x 4 = 208 (work order certifications)
                                                Total: 516 hours per respondent
          Request Approval to Contract. The estimate utilized is identical to that provided in the ICR for the proposed rule and for previous renewals. It is based upon an average estimate of five requests per respondent per year with an associated effort of 20 hours per request, or 100 hours per respondent. This review and approval time has remained constant over the years and is not expected to change during the three-year period covered by this renewal. This is exclusively a requirement for the Federal Government and therefore no CBP is assigned.

                                        ANNUAL BURDEN:	100 hours per respondent

Analysis of Annual Respondent Cost Per-Activity:
Task & Labor Type Breakdown
                                     Rate
                                     Hours
                                     Cost

New Respondents Only
      Task 1 Prepare COI Plan

Management
                                                                       $ 135.24
                                                                          29.25
                                                                       $3955.77

Technical
                                                                         $60.24
                                                                           58.5
                                                                       $3524.04

Administrative
                                                                         $34.10
                                                                          29.25
                                                                        $997.43

                                                                            117
                                                                       $8477.24

      Task 2 	Create Database

Management
                                                                       $ 135.24
                                                                              7
                                                                        $946.68

Technical
                                                                         $60.24
                                                                             14
                                                                        $843.36

Administrative
                                                                         $34.10
                                                                              7
                                                                        $238.70

                                                                             28
                                                                       $2028.74

All Respondents
      Task 3	Storage & Maintenance

Management
                                                                       $ 135.24
                                                                           38.5
                                                                       $5206.74

Technical
                                                                         $60.24
                                                                             77
                                                                       $4638.48

Administrative
                                                                         $34.10
                                                                           38.5
                                                                       $1312.85

                                                                            154
                                                                      $11158.07

      Task 4 	Search Database

Management
                                                                       $ 135.24
                                                                         110.25
                                                                      $14910.21

Technical
                                                                         $60.24
                                                                         220.50
                                                                      $13282.92

Administrative
                                                                         $34.10
                                                                         110.25
                                                                       $3739.53

                                                                            441
                                                                      $31952.66

      Task 5	Certify/Disclose

Management
                                                                       $ 135.24
                                                                            129
                                                                      $17445.96

Technical
                                                                         $60.24
                                                                            258
                                                                      $15541.92

Administrative
                                                                         $34.10
                                                                            129
                                                                       $4398.90

                                                                            516
                                                                      $37386.78

      Task 6 	Request Approval to Contract

Management
                                                                       $ 135.24
                                                                             25
                                                                       $3381.00

Technical
                                                                         $60.24
                                                                             50
                                                                       $3012.00

Administrative
                                                                         $34.10
                                                                             25
                                                                        $852.50

                                                                            100
                                                                       $7245.50

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers
resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden
already reflected on the burden worksheet).
      The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost
component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and
maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should consider
costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the
information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors
including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment,
the discount rate(s), and the period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and
start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as
purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing
equipment; and record storage facilities.
      If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost
burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting
out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In
developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents
(fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use
existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking
containing the information collection, as appropriate.
      Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions
thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with
requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to
provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and
usual business or private practices.
*EPA is aggregating cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 into a single table per OMB guidance.
Estimating Capital and O&M Costs
Because it will not be necessary for respondents to acquire any capital goods to provide the requested information, EPA has estimated no incurred capital/start-up costs. Operating and maintenance costs, which include such items as file storage, photo copying, and postage, are negligible.

Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

Respondent Tally
Total annual respondent burden for new respondents (which includes all tasks) is 1,754.45 hours times 11 new respondents for a total of 19,299 hours.
Total annual respondent burden for respondents which are not new (performing only tasks 3 through 6) is 1,950 hours times 45 respondents for a total of 87,743 hours.
Annual time burden for all respondents, all tasks, is 69,757.52 hours. Estimated burden per respondent is (total hours divided by all 56 respondents) is 1245.67 hours per respondent.
For the 11 new respondents required to undertake tasks 1 and 2, annual costs for these activities are estimated to be $10,505.98 per respondent and $115,565.78 for the group.
All 45 respondents are expected to undertake tasks 3 through 6.  Their anticipated annual costs for these activities are $87,743.01 per respondent and $4,913,608.56 for the group.
The total annual cost for all respondents is $5,029,174.34.  The average annual cost per respondent is estimated to be $89,806.68.

Analysis of Total Annual Labor Costs

Task 1
$8,477.24

Task 2
$2,028.74

                                                                         Total:
$10,505.98

                                   Task 1&2 Total (for 11 New Respondents):
$115,565.78

Task 3
$11,158.07

Task 4
$31,952.66

Task 5
$37,386.78

Task 6
$7,245.50

                                                                         Total:
$87,743.01

                                           Task 3-6 Total (for 56 Respondents):
$4,913,608.56

                                                         Total All Respondents:
$5,029,174.34
                                                                Per Respondent:
$89,806.68

Agency Tally
Annual agency burden is estimated to be 5,292 hours and $416,199.20.

14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal government. Also, provide a description
of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours,
operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any
other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.
*EPA is aggregating cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 into a single table per OMB guidance.
Estimating Agency Burden and Costs
The Agency based its burden estimates on actual experience in collecting, reviewing, and approving contractors' COI submissions. Due to the complexity of the task, as well as the experience and skill required in reviewing contractors' COI submissions, this effort is performed by a Grade 14 contracting officer. The contracting personnel who review the submissions also document their findings in the contracting file. No administrative support is used in this effort. The second task, reviewing the contractor's COI plan is done before the contract is awarded on a one-time basis. The third task, reviewing certifications and disclosures, includes annual and by work order certifications and disclosures as well as requests. The fourth task is reviewing requests for approval of future contract.

The hourly rate for a step five, GS-14 is $51.17 per Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2021-GS. A rate of 65%, or $31.10, was added to cover overhead costs. The loaded rate equals $82.27 per hour.

Annual Agency Burden/Cost Estimates
                              Collection Activity
                                 Burden Hours
                                  (per year)
                                     Cost
                           (based on rate of $82.27)
1.  Answer Respondent Questions
                                                                            250
                                                                    $ 20,567.50
2.  Reviewing the contractor's conflict of interest plan
                                                                            240
                                                                    $ 19,744.80
3a. Reviewing annual certifications or disclosures and documenting the file.
                                                              (11 x 2=22 hours)
                                                                             22
                                                                     $ 1,809.94
3b. Reviewing work order certifications or disclosures and documenting the file.
                            (52 x 45 =2,340 responses. 2,340 x 2 = 4,680 hours)
                                                                          4,680
                                                                   $ 385,023.60
4. Reviewing requests for approval for future contracting and documenting the contract file

                                                                            100
                                                                     $ 8,227.00
                                                                        Total:
                                                                          5,292
                                                                   $ 435,372.84

Agency Activities
The Agency anticipates performing the information collection activities listed below, in conjunction with COI requirements.
 Analyzing the contract scope and inserting appropriate COI clauses in contracts;
 Collecting COI certifications or disclosures, or requests to review future contracts from the contractor;
 When a conflict is disclosed or a request for a future contract is made, analyzing the information provided and determining the appropriate measures to avoid, neutralize or mitigate the conflict; and
 Filing certifications of no conflict or documenting action on potential COI disclosures in the contract file.

Collection Methodology and Management
After conducting extensive market research, the Contracting Officer (CO) makes the determination whether a COI plan and clauses will be required from the responding contractors.  The CO has responsibility for collecting, reviewing, and making COI determinations. Information is collected through specific COI related provisions and clauses for Superfund Programs and other requirements that provide contractors with directions on what they need to submit to the Agency depending on the work to be performed. Not all contracts will have the same COI clauses. The information and determinations will be filed in the specific contract files as the official record of the Agency decision. Most respondents will prepare their submissions electronically. Submissions are accepted in any format so long as the required information is provided.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the burden worksheet.
Reason for Changes in Burden
There was a slight increase in burden because of the addition of 11 respondents.  It is expected that year over year there will be some fluctuation.  Overall, the increase from 45 to 56 is within a reasonable burden fluctuation.
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
N/A
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
N/A
18. Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."
N/A


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8748-8750]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04051]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1113]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tennessee River, Miles 446.0 to 454.5

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for all
navigable waters of the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 446.0
and ending at mile marker 454.5 during periods of high water flow. This
safety zone is necessary to provide safety for mariners transiting on
the Tennessee River during periods of high water flow. Entry into this
area will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port Ohio Valley or designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1113 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Vera Max, MSD Nashville, Nashville, TN, at
615-736-5421 or at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is establishing a safety zone
for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River, from mile 446.0 to
454.5 during periods of high water flow. This safety zone is necessary
to provide safety for mariners transiting on the Tennessee River during
periods of high water flow. There have been temporary final rules
issued in the past establishing a safety zone on the Tennessee River
beginning at mile marker 446.0 and ending at mile marker 454.5 when
flow rates reached or exceeded 100,000 cubic feet per second at
Chickamauga lock and dam. Examples of these previous temporary final
rules were published under docket numbers USCG-2013-0025 and USCG-2011-
1148. This rulemaking is also necessary to more efficiently effect
necessary safety measures during emergent high water events in the
future by reducing administrative burden and the amount of paperwork
required for multiple individual rulemakings. The Tennessee River
beginning at mile marker 446.0 and ending at 454.5 poses a navigational
hazard during periods of high water flow. A high water flow
determination for this area is established when flow rates reach or
exceed 100,000 cubic feet per second at Chickamauga lock and dam on the
Tennessee River at mile marker 471.0. The Captain of the Port Sector
Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that additional safety measures are
necessary

to protect all mariners during periods of high water flow. On January
13, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) titled Safety zone; Tennessee River, Mile 446.0 to 454.5 (82 FR
4229). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on
our proposed regulatory action related high water flow. During the
comment period that ended January 30, 2017, we received no comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards are associated
with the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 446.0 and ending at
454.5 posing a navigational hazard during periods of high water flow.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published
January 13, 2017. The regulatory text of this rule was changed from the
proposed rule in the NPRM to provide a certain effective date.
    The COTP is establishing a safety zone for all navigable waters of
the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 446.0 and ending at mile
marker 454.5. Vessels or persons will not be able to enter into, depart
from, or move within this area without permission from the COTP or
designated representative. Persons or vessels requiring entry into or
passage through the safety zone will be required to request permission
from the COTP, or designated representative. They can be contacted on
VHF-FM Channel 13, 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-
800-253-7465. This rule is effective during periods of high water flow
when flow rates reach or exceed 100,000 cubic feet per second at
Chickamauga lock and dam. The COTP will inform the public through
broadcast notices to mariners during periods of high water flow when
the safety zone is established as well as when flow rates fall below
100,000 cubic feet per second and the safety zone is no longer in
effect.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will only be impacted during times of high water which pose dangerous
navigational hazards when flow rates exceed 100,000 cubic feet per
second at Chickamauga lock and dam. Moreover, the Coast Guard would
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    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 rule. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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.

F. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within the
regulated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.844 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.844   Safety Zone; Tennessee River, Miles 446.0 to 454.5,
Chattanooga, TN.

    (a) Location. All navigable waters of the Tennessee River beginning
at mile marker 446.0 and ending at mile marker 454.5 at Chattanooga,
TN.
    (b) Effective date. This section is effective on March 5, 2018.
    (c) Periods of enforcement. This section will be enforced whenever
flow rates reach or exceed 100,000 cubic feet per second at Chickamauga
lock and dam on the Tennessee River at mile marker 471.0. The Captain
of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative
will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the
enforcement period for the safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring entry into or passage through the
zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on
VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP and designated U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene
U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and
petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: February 21, 2018.
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2018-04051 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25971-25973]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11859]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0138; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Austin, TX; and
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Georgetown, TX, and Austin, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D airspace at San Marcos
Regional Airport, Austin, TX; establish Class E airspace designated as
a surface area at Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX, and San
Marcos Regional Airport; and amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at San Marco Regional Airport and
Lockhart Municipal Airport, Lockhart, TX. The FAA is proposing this
action at the request of Austin Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)/
Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) to establish part-time Class E
airspace designated as a surface area at Georgetown Municipal Airport
and San Marcos Regional Airport and to review the associated airspace
for the safety and management of instrument flight rule (IFR)
operations at these airports. The name of San Marcos Regional Airport
would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and
the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' would be replaced with
the term ``Chart Supplement''.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0138; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-5, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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 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 would amend Class D airspace at San Marcos Regional
Airport, Austin, TX; establish Class E airspace designated as a surface
area at Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX, and San Marcos
Regional Airport; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at San Marco Regional Airport and Lockhart
Municipal Airport, Lockhart, TX, to support IFR operations at these
airports.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0138;
Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-5.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
    Amending the airspace designation location in the airspace legal
description of the Class D airspace from San Marcos, TX, to Austin, TX,
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; amending the radius
to within a 4.3-mile radius (increased from a 4.2-mile radius) of San
Marcos Regional Airport (formerly San Marcos Municipal Airport),
Austin, TX; adding an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 306[deg]
bearing from the San Marcos Regional: RWY 13-LOC extending from the
4.3-mile radius to 4.6 miles northwest of the airport; updating the
name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
and replacing the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with
``Chart Supplement'';
    Establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a
4.3-mile radius of San Marcos Regional Airport, Austin, TX, with an
extension 1.0 mile each side of the 306[deg] bearing from the San
Marcos Regional: RWY 13-LOC from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.6 miles
northwest of the airport; and with an extension 1.0 mile each side of
the 313[deg] bearing from the airport from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.0
miles northwest of the airport; and with an extension 1.0 mile each
side of the 268[deg] bearing from the airport from the 4.3-mile radius
to 4.4 miles west of the airport; and with an extension 1.0 mile each
side of the 358[deg] bearing from the airport from the 4.3-mile radius
to 4.4 miles north of the airport;
    Establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a
4.1-mile radius of Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX; and
    Amending the airspace designation location in the airspace legal
description of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface from San Marcos, TX, to Austin, TX, to coincide with
the FAA's aeronautical database; amending the radius to within a 6.8-
mile radius (increased from a 6.7-mile radius) of San Marcos Regional
Airport (formerly San Marcos Municipal Airport), Austin, TX; amending
the extension to the northwest of the airport to 12.0 miles (increased
from 11.1 miles); amending the extension to the east of the airport to
10.5 miles (increased from 10.4 miles); amending the extension to the
southeast of the airport to 9.7 miles (increased from 9.6 miles);
amending the extension to the south of the airport to 10.5 miles
(increased from 10.4 miles); and amending the radius to within 6.4-
miles (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Lockhart Municipal Airport,
Lockhart, TX, included in the Austin, TX, airspace legal description.
    This action is being proposed at the request of Austin ATCT/TRACON
to establish part-time Class E airspace designated as an extension of
Class D and E surface areas at Georgetown Municipal Airport and San
Marcos Regional Airport and to review the associated airspace for the
safety and management of IFR operations at these airports.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August
3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
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 will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000. Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Austin, TX [Amended]

San Marcos Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]53'34'' N, long. 97[deg]51'47'' W)
San Marcos Regional: RWY 13-LOC
    (Lat. 29[deg]53'03'' N, long. 97[deg]51'15'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,100 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of San Marcos Regional
Airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the San Marcos Regional:
RWY13-LOC extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.6 miles northwest
of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 313[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.0
miles northwest of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the
268[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius
to 4.4 miles west of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of
the 358[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile
radius to 4.4 miles north of the airport. This Class D airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will
thereafter be continually published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASW TX E2 Austin, TX [New]

San Marcos Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]53'34'' N, long. 97[deg]51'47'' W)
San Marcos Regional: RWY 13-LOC
    (Lat. 29[deg]53'03'' N, long. 97[deg]51'15'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,100 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of San Marcos Regional
Airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the San Marcos Regional:
RWY13-LOC extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.6 miles northwest
of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 313[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5
miles northwest of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the
268[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius
to 4.4 miles west of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of
the 358[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile
radius to 4.4 miles north of the airport. This Class E airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will
thereafter be continually published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

ASW TX E2 Georgetown, TX [New]

Georgetown Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]40'44'' N, long. 97[deg]40'46'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,300 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Georgetown Municipal
Airport. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published
in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Austin, TX [Amended]

San Marcos Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]53'34'' N, long. 97[deg]51'47'' W)
Lockhart Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]51'01'' N, long. 97[deg]40'21'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of San Marcos Regional Airport, and within
2 miles each side of the 268[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.8-mile radius to 13.1 miles west of the airport, and
within 2 miles each side of the 313[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 12.0 miles northwest of the
airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 088[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 10.5 miles east of
the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 133[deg] bearing
from the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 9.7 miles
southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the
178[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius
to 10.5 miles south of the airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of
Lockhart Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 24, 2018.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-11859 Filed 6-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P