[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4582-4584]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31293; Amdt. No. 3888]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective January 27, 2020. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of January 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg 29 Room 104, Oklahoma
City, OK 73169. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

    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.
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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 10, 2020.
Rick Domingo,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     AIRAC date         State           City             Airport         FDC No.      FDC date                           Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27-Feb-20..........  WY          Lander...........  Hunt Field.......       0/0409       1/6/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig.
27-Feb-20..........  MN          Montevideo.......  Montevideo-             0/0419       1/3/20  VOR RWY 14, Amdt 5A.
                                                     Chippewa County.
27-Feb-20..........  NE          Seward...........  Seward Muni......       0/0426       1/3/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  VA          Front Royal......  Front Royal-            0/0432       1/6/20  RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-B.
                                                     Warren County.
27-Feb-20..........  SC          Union............  Union County,           0/0816       1/7/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-B.
                                                     Troy Shelton
                                                     Field.
27-Feb-20..........  SC          Union............  Union County,           0/0820       1/7/20  NDB RWY 5, Orig-B.
                                                     Troy Shelton
                                                     Field.
27-Feb-20..........  SC          Union............  Union County,           0/0832       1/7/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-B.
                                                     Troy Shelton
                                                     Field.
27-Feb-20..........  NC          Concord..........  Concord-Padgett         0/0858       1/7/20  ILS OR LOC RWY 20, Amdt 2A.
                                                     Rgnl.
27-Feb-20..........  NC          Concord..........  Concord-Padgett         0/0861       1/7/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-A.
                                                     Rgnl.
27-Feb-20..........  MI          Mackinac Island..  Mackinac Island..       9/0092     12/26/19  VOR/DME-A , Amdt 9A.
27-Feb-20..........  MT          Twin Bridges.....  Twin Bridges.....       9/0156       1/7/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  MT          Twin Bridges.....  Twin Bridges.....       9/0157       1/7/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  MN          Moose Lake.......  Moose Lake              9/0223     12/26/19  NDB RWY 4, Amdt 1A.
                                                     Carlton County.
27-Feb-20..........  AL          Prattville.......  Prattville--Groub       9/1016     12/27/19  VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3B.
                                                     y Field.
27-Feb-20..........  AL          Gadsden..........  Northeast Alabama       9/1018     12/27/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1B.
                                                     Rgnl.
27-Feb-20..........  AL          Gadsden..........  Northeast Alabama       9/1019     12/27/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1B.
                                                     Rgnl.
27-Feb-20..........  AL          Gadsden..........  Northeast Alabama       9/1020     12/27/19  ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Orig-B.
                                                     Rgnl.
27-Feb-20..........  NH          Manchester.......  Manchester.......       9/2101     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2B.
27-Feb-20..........  SC          Anderson.........  Anderson Rgnl....       9/2104     12/26/19  ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 1B.
27-Feb-20..........  SC          Anderson.........  Anderson Rgnl....       9/2105     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5 , Amdt 1B.
27-Feb-20..........  SC          Anderson.........  Anderson Rgnl....       9/2106     12/26/19  VOR RWY 5, Amdt 10A.
27-Feb-20..........  OK          Shawnee..........  Shawnee Rgnl.....       9/2731     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1.
27-Feb-20..........  OK          Shawnee..........  Shawnee Rgnl.....       9/2733     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-B.
27-Feb-20..........  GA          Athens...........  Athens/Ben Epps..       9/4202     12/26/19  VOR RWY 2, Amdt 11C.
27-Feb-20..........  KY          Frankfort........  Capital City.....       9/4203     12/26/19  LOC RWY 25, Amdt 3C.
27-Feb-20..........  KY          Somerset.........  Lake Cumberland         9/4204     12/26/19  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY, 5, Orig-E.
                                                     Rgnl.
27-Feb-20..........  MS          Tupelo...........  Tupelo Rgnl......       9/5852     12/26/19  ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 36, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  MS          Tupelo...........  Tupelo Rgnl......       9/5855     12/26/19  NDB RWY 36, Amdt 5B.
27-Feb-20..........  MS          Tupelo...........  Tupelo Rgnl......       9/5856     12/26/19  COPTER VOR 023, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  MN          Olivia...........  Olivia Rgnl......       9/8446     12/26/19  VOR/DME OR GPS-A, Amdt 2A.
27-Feb-20..........  MN          Olivia...........  Olivia Rgnl......       9/8447     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  NV          Eureka...........  Eureka...........       9/8448     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  MO          Bolivar..........  Bolivar Muni.....       9/8449     12/26/19  VOR/DME RWY 36, Orig.
27-Feb-20..........  UT          Duchesne.........  Duchesne Muni....       9/8450     12/26/19  VOR/DME-A, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  MI          Detroit..........  Willow Run.......       9/8822     12/26/19  VOR-A, Amdt 1A.
27-Feb-20..........  IL          Chicago..........  Chicago O'Hare          9/8839     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4R, Amdt 1B.
                                                     Intl.
27-Feb-20..........  IL          Chicago..........  Chicago O'Hare          9/8840     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 2B.
                                                     Intl.
27-Feb-20..........  WI          Baraboo..........  Baraboo-Wisconsin       9/8845     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1C.
                                                     Dells Rgnl.
27-Feb-20..........  CA          La Verne.........  Brackett Field...       9/8879     12/26/19  VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 5D.
27-Feb-20..........  CA          Carlsbad.........  Mc Clellan-             9/8980     12/26/19  VOR-A, Amdt 8.
                                                     Palomar.

27-Feb-20..........  NC          Salisbury........  Mid-Carolina Rgnl       9/9048     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1B.
27-Feb-20..........  NC          Salisbury........  Mid-Carolina Rgnl       9/9055     12/26/19  NDB RWY 20, Amdt 1B.
27-Feb-20..........  NC          Salisbury........  Mid-Carolina Rgnl       9/9056     12/26/19  ILS OR LOC RWY 20, Amdt 1B.
27-Feb-20..........  NM          Deming...........  Deming Muni......       9/9062       1/3/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1A.
27-Feb-20..........  NM          Deming...........  Deming Muni......       9/9063       1/3/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  NM          Deming...........  Deming Muni......       9/9065       1/3/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  KY          Murray...........  Kyle-Oakley Field       9/9167     12/26/19  LOC RWY 23, Amdt 2B.
27-Feb-20..........  OH          Youngstown.......  Youngstown Elser        9/9168     12/26/19  VOR-C, Amdt 2B.
                                                     Metro.
27-Feb-20..........  KY          Springfield......  Lebanon                 9/9177     12/26/19  VOR/DME RWY 11, Amdt 4C.
                                                     Springfield-
                                                     George Hoerter
                                                     Field.
27-Feb-20..........  NV          Reno.............  Reno/Stead.......       9/9181     12/26/19  ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Orig-A.
27-Feb-20..........  NV          Reno.............  Reno/Stead.......       9/9183     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1B.
27-Feb-20..........  IN          Angola...........  Tri-State Steuben       9/9187     12/26/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-E.
                                                     County.
27-Feb-20..........  KY          Williamsburg.....  Williamsburg-           9/9658     12/26/19  LOC RWY 20, Orig-C.
                                                     Whitley County.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-00889 Filed 1-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13078-13079]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0011]

Interlake Stamping Corp. (Also Doing Business as Interlake
Industries, Inc.); Revocation of an Experimental Variance and Interim
Order

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (``OSHA'' or the ``Agency'') revokes an experimental
variance and interim order granted by OSHA in 1976 and 1978,
respectively, to Interlake Stamping Corp., (``Interlake'' or the
``applicant'') from several provisions of the OSHA standard that
regulates mechanical power presses at 29 CFR 1910.217. In April 2011,
Interlake submitted an application request for a permanent variance
from these provisions, but later withdrew the application, stating that
it would be too costly to comply with the conditions of the variance.
Therefore, OSHA is revoking Interlake's experimental variance and the
interim order.

DATES: The revocation becomes effective on March 7, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact David Johnson, Director,
Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate
of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web page includes
information about the Variance Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/index.html ).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Previous Experimental Variance

    On August 31, 1976, OSHA granted Interlake Stamping Corp., 4732
East 355th Street, Willoughby, OH 44094, an experimental variance from
the provisions of OSHA standards that regulate mechanical power presses
at 29 CFR 1910.217 (41 FR 36702). Below is a description of the history
of this experimental variance:
    (1) On May 20, 1974, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing that Interlake submitted an application pursuant to
Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the
Act; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 for a permanent variance from
several provisions of OSHA's mechanical power-presses standard (39 FR
17806); these provisions were 29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(c), which
prohibited the use of presence-sensing-device-initiation (PSDI)
systems, and 29 CFR 1910.217(d)(1), which regulated conduct of
mechanical power-press operations. According to the May 20, 1974,
Federal Register notice, Interlake proposed the following alternate
means of compliance in its variance application:

    The applicant states that he has purchased a 22-ton Bliss OBI
mechanical power press equipped with an air friction clutch and an
Erwin Sick electronic light curtain. The press is equipped with
special controls and a highly reliable brake monitoring system. The
applicant further proposes to use the electronic light curtain as
both a protective device and as a means of cycling the press. The
applicant states that electronic light curtain devices are used as a
tripping means in Europe and a large body of standards governing
their design and use in this manner has been accumulated . . . .

    (2) On June 3, 1974, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register extending for 30 days the comment period on Interlake's
application for a permanent variance (39 FR 19543).
    (3) On February 3, 1976, OSHA published a Federal Register notice
announcing that Interlake was abandoning its application for a
permanent variance and, instead, was applying for an experimental
variance pursuant to Section 6(b)(6)(c) of the Act (41 FR 4994).
Interlake took this action because OSHA revised the requirements in 29
CFR 1910.217(d)(1) on May 20, 1974 (39 FR 41841), which obviated the
applicant's need for a variance from that provision. Concurrently, OSHA
renumbered 29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(c) as 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b). The new application, therefore, sought an
experimental variance from 29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b). According to
the February 3, 1976, Federal Register notice, Interlake was seeking to
conduct an experiment designed to demonstrate that it can use the
presence-sensing-point-of-operation device on a mechanical power press
as a tripping mechanism, in addition to its function as a safety
device, while maintaining employee safety at or above the level
provided by the standard. Interlake also claimed that the experiment
would validate Swedish and German data showing that employers use this
tripping mechanism virtually free of accidents.
    (4) On August 31, 1976, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register granting Interlake an experimental variance for a one-year
period, August 31, 1976, to August 30, 1977 (41 FR 36702).
    (5) On September 9, 1977, OSHA published a Federal Register notice
extending the experimental variance for a six-month period, September
1, 1977, to February 28, 1978, to allow Interlake to collect additional
information on a number of factors, including the effects of the
experimental conditions on worker safety and productivity (42 FR
45389).
    (6) On March 17, 1978, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the experimental variance for a two-year period,
March 1, 1977, to February 28, 1979 (43 FR 11275). This extension
allowed Interlake to continue collecting information on the effects of
the experimental conditions on worker safety and productivity, but also
allowed the Agency to collect information for a possible new standard
regulating PSDI systems, including information on the need for a
certification program and the level of interest in the regulated
community for using PSDI systems. In this notice,

OSHA also granted Interlake an interim order to preserve the continuity
of the experimental conditions pending a final decision on the
variance.
    (7) On March 6, 1979, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the experimental variance for an additional two-year
period, March 6, 1979, to March 5, 1981, to continue collecting safety
and productivity information, and to preserve the continuity of the
experimental conditions (44 FR 12288).
    (8) On May 29, 1981, OSHA published a Federal Register notice
extending the experimental variance for an additional one-year period
from May 29, 1981, to May 28, 1982 (46 FR 29010). The main purpose of
this extension was to allow the Purdue Research Foundation, under
contract to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
to: (1) Observe and evaluate the self-tripping experiment at Interlake;
(2) research the design and application practices that could develop if
OSHA expanded the experiment to other sites or modified 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b); and (3) develop design and performance-criteria
approval procedures, and continuing research strategies.
    (9) In 1988, OSHA added paragraph (h) to 29 CFR 1910.217 (53 FR
8353). Paragraph (h) allows employers to install and use PSDI systems,
but requires that OSHA-approved third parties validate the PSDI systems
at the time of installation and annually thereafter. To date, no third
party has requested OSHA's approval to validate PSDI systems. In the
interim, Interlake continued operating mechanical power presses using
PSDI systems under the interim order granted in 1978. However, on March
24, 2011, OSHA informed Interlake that it must submit an application
for a permanent variance if it wanted to continue this practice (Ex.
OSHA-2013-0011-002).

B. Interlake's Application for a Permanent Variance

    On April 8, 2011, OSHA received Interlake's application seeking a
permanent variance from Appendices A and C of 29 CFR 1910.217 (see Ex.
OSHA-2013-0011-002). Appendix A sets forth requirements for
certification/validation of PSDI systems, and Appendix C specifies
requirements for OSHA recognition of third-party validation
organizations for PSDI systems. Interlake proposed to use PSDI systems
as tripping mechanisms under conditions similar to the conditions
specified by the experimental variance granted to Interlake by OSHA in
1976 (see previous discussion).
    In its variance application, and in its responses to OSHA's follow-
up questions (Ex. OSHA-2013-0011-004), Interlake provided a detailed
description of its proposed alternate means of worker protection during
operation of the PSDI system, including a description of the power
presses and light curtains used; the equipment-guarding means and
worker training provided; and inspection, testing, and maintenance
procedures. Additionally, in its responses to OSHA's follow-up
questions, Interlake stated that it never had a worker injured while
using PSDI systems during the 36 years it operated the systems under
the conditions specified by the experimental variance.
    On August 2, 2012, OSHA conducted a site-evaluation visit at
Interlake's Willoughby, Ohio, plant. The purpose of the visit was to
review and confirm the continued safe operation of the two mechanical
power presses equipped with PSDI systems. Based on the results of the
site-evaluation visit, OSHA, on March 13, 2013, proposed in a letter to
Interlake several additional conditions that the Agency believed
Interlake should include in its variance application (Ex. OSHA-2013-
0011-005). On April 30, 2013, Interlake responded to this proposal (Ex.
OSHA-2013-0011-006). OSHA reviewed Interlake's responses and modified
several of the proposed conditions. In a letter dated September 4,
2013, OSHA notified Interlake of the Agency's revisions to the proposed
conditions (Ex. OSHA-2013-0011-007). After reviewing these revisions,
Interlake notified OSHA on September 17, 2013, that it is withdrawing
its application for a permanent variance, stating:

    [T]he management team at Interlake Stamping has decided not to
pursue the permanent variance for use of the Presence Sensing Device
Initiation (PSDI). We feel it would be too costly for us to comply
with all of the requirements mandated in the OSHA response going
forward, and would be more economical for us to discontinue its use
completely. We understand that the experimental variance that
Interlake was granted will no longer be in effect and we have
removed the connections completely disabling the PSDI system as of
this date. (Emphasis in original; Ex. OSHA-2013-0011-008.)

II. Revocation of Interlake's Experimental Variance

    Based on its review of the record, and the applicant's request to
withdraw its application for a permanent variance, OSHA finds that
Interlake no longer needs the experimental variance. Therefore, under
the authority specified by 29 CFR 1905.13(a)(2), OSHA is revoking the
experimental variance granted to Interlake on August 31, 1976, and
extended through April 30, 1982. With this notice, OSHA also is
revoking the interim order granted to Interlake on March 17, 1978,
under which Interlake continued to comply with the conditions of the
experimental variance from May 1, 1982, to September 17, 2013.
    Accordingly, Interlake must comply fully with the requirements of
29 CFR 1910.217(h) if it decides to use PSDI systems.

III. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified
by 29 U.S.C. 655, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912;
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1905.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 4, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-04982 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8197-8200]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976; FRL-8526-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Oxides of Nitrogen Budget Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting final approval to Ohio's request for the
retirement and withdrawal of 240 oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
allowances from the State's 2005 new source set aside. Retiring 240 new
source set aside allowances will provide surplus emission reductions to
help compensate for the discontinuation of Ohio's motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program (known as ``E-Check'') in the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas for the year 2006. (Ohio is in the process
of seeking approval of the removal of E-Check as an active program from
the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which will be addressed in a
separate action.) EPA received adverse comments and one positive
comment on our proposed rulemaking on the allowance retirement. These
comments are addressed in this notice. As a result of this action, 240
NOX allowances from the State's 2005 new source set aside
will be withheld and permanently retired.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that
you telephone Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What did EPA propose?
II. What is EPA's response to comments?
III. What action is EPA taking today?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What did EPA propose?

    On October 6, 2006, Ohio submitted revisions to Ohio Administrative
Code (OAC) Chapters 3745-72-01 and 3745-14-05. These rules provide a
revised start date for the use of low-volatility gasoline and provide
the necessary quantity of interim, surplus NOX emission
reductions through the permanent retirement of new source set aside
allowances from the State's NOX budget trading program.
Revisions to OAC 3745-72-01 were addressed in a separate rulemaking
published on May 25, 2007, at 72 FR 29269.
    On September 13, 2007 (at 72 FR 52320), EPA proposed to approve the
revisions to OAC 3745-14-05. The revision to OAC 3745-14-05 permanently
withholds and retires 240 NOX allowances from Ohio's 2005
new source set aside.
    By retiring these new source set aside allowances, Ohio guarantees
that these allowances will not be reallocated to participating Ohio
NOX SIP Call utilities and boilers the following year. This
action allows EPA to consider the corresponding reduction of 240 tons
of emissions of NOX to be surplus. These 240 tons of surplus
NOX emission reductions, corresponding to reductions
resulting from emission control devices installed on electrical
generation units in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas before 2006, can be
considered to provide 240 tons of NOX emission reduction in
compensation for the equivalent emission increase resulting from
discontinuation of the E-Check program in those areas in 2006.

II. What is EPA's response to comments?

    EPA received both supportive and adverse comments in response to
our proposed rulemaking on OAC 3745-14-05. EPA received comments from
the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA) in support of our
proposed action on October 18, 2007.
    Adverse comments were sent dated January 12, February 15, March 13,
and October 15, 2007, from Shumaker, Loop, and Kendrick, LLP, a law
firm representing the Ohio Electric Utility Institute as well as
various utilities in the State (hereafter described as ``the
Utilities''). Despite some comments being sent even before EPA had
published the proposed rulemaking, we are treating the early comments
as pertaining to today's action, and we address them in this action.
    Comment: The Utilities believe that withholding and permanently
retiring 240 NOX allowances has not and will not create
emissions reductions in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas, specifically
because:
    (a) NOX allowances are not emissions reductions;
    (b) If an Ohio source wanted to emit more, it could purchase
allowances from outside the state, or it could transfer allowances from
a facility it owns in another state;
    (c) If no Ohio sources needed the withheld allowances for the
purposes of compliance, then withholding and retiring the 240
allowances will not result in decreased emissions in the Ohio or
Cincinnati/Dayton areas; and,
    (d) No evidence exists to support that withholding these allowances
resulted in reductions in the Cincinnati/Dayton areas.
    Response: Under the cap and trade program known as the
NOX SIP Call, EPA issues a finite number of allowances and
allows each subject source an amount of emissions based on the quantity
of allowances the source holds. The quantity of allowances thus
corresponds to the total emissions allowed across the area covered by
the NOX SIP Call. Consequently, by retiring 240 allowances,
Ohio has unquestionably reduced the total allowable emissions across
the NOX SIP Call area by 240 tons of NOX
emissions. Ohio may use utility NOX emission reductions to
compensate for discontinuing E-Check only if the reductions are surplus
relative to existing requirements, and the retirement of 240 allowances
provides 240 tons of NOX emission reductions that are
surplus to the reductions mandated by the existing NOX SIP
Call.
    EPA further believes that Ohio can reasonably claim that the 240
tons of surplus NOX emission reduction that they have
mandated compensates for 240 tons of NOX emission increase
(or the equivalent quantity of increase in volatile organic compound
emissions) resulting from discontinuation of E-Check. As stated in our
notice of proposed rulemaking, ``substantial emission reductions have
occurred in the Cincinnati/Dayton area,'' and ``EPA believes that Ohio
has latitude to attribute 240 tons of the 2006 NOX emission
reductions in the Cincinnati/Dayton area to its retirement of 240
allowances.''
    The comments do not directly address the rationale for these views
that EPA provided in its notice of proposed rulemaking. The following
responds more directly to the submitted comments:
    (a) Retirement of NOX allowances does mandate a net
emission reduction.
    (b) Purchasing or transferring allowances from another location
reduces allowable emissions at that other location, retaining the net
emission reduction.
    (c) EPA is concluding that 240 tons of the emission reductions that
are known to have occurred in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas can be
attributed to Ohio's retirement of 240 allowances. Ohio sources will
not need these allowances precisely because they have implemented
emission reductions mandated by the limited availability of allowances.
    (d) Ohio provided for 240 tons of emission reduction, and Ohio can
reasonably attribute this reduction to a small fraction of the over
10,000 tons of NOX reductions that have occurred in the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas.\1\ The commenter seeks evidence of a
causal link between the allowance retirement and specific emission
reductions, which would presumably require that Ohio or EPA examine the
motivations underlying utility control decisions. EPA believes that
such a survey is unnecessary, and believes that Ohio has adequate basis
for associating the surplus reductions created by the rule revision
with 240 tons of reductions that

have occurred in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a letter dated February 23, 2007, Ohio supplemented its
submittal with information regarding NOX emission
reductions that have occurred in the Cincinnati/Dayton area. This
letter identifies several actions that substantially reduced
NOX emissions starting from before the 2006 ozone season,
which include installation of selective catalytic reduction controls
at 3 units and installation of low NOX burners at 9 other
units. Ohio estimates that the total emission reduction from these
actions is over 10,000 tons per ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Utilities commented that Ohio's October 6, 2006,
submittal should be considered `incomplete' because it does not meet
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, section 2.2, paragraphs
(c), (d), and (e). For each section, the Utilities comment that
statements by Ohio EPA personnel (provided in an appendix to the
comments) support their view.
    40 CFR part 51, Appendix V section 2.2(c) requires ``Quantification
of the changes to the plan of allowable emissions from the affected
sources, estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected
sources, or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual
emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences
between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as
a result of the revision.'' The Utilities comment that Ohio only
submitted the number of NOX allowances it plans to retire
(240). Further, the Utilities state that Ohio's submittal does not
quantify the ``allowable emissions'' from the Utilities under OAC 5745-
14-05(C)(7) because the retired allowances do not limit utilities'
allowable emissions. The Utilities in fact believe that it is
impossible for Ohio to calculate the allowable emissions from Ohio
utilities.
    40 CFR part 51, Appendix V 2.2(d) requires ``The State's
demonstration that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further
progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if
the plan is approved and implemented.'' The Utilities comment that
Ohio's calculation of 240 allowances cannot, by itself, show that the
NAAQS are protected by OAC 3745-14-05(C)(7), despite anti-backsliding
being the impetus for Ohio's submittal.
    40 CFR part 51, Appendix V 2.2(e) requires ``Modeling information
required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output
data, models used, justification of model selections, ambient
monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use
of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and
other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the
modeling analysis.'' The Utilities comment that Ohio's submittal does
not contain an equivalency demonstration or a modeling demonstration,
and that modeling is necessary when reductions are made from sources
outside the area. The Utilities believe Ohio EPA should have conducted
modeling to support their submittal yet did not.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the Utilities' comments on both
substantive and process grounds. For the substance of 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V section 2.2(c), Ohio has specified that the rule provides
240 tons of NOX emission reduction. This number is
completely specific and is precisely the type of information that EPA
seeks under this section of Appendix V. EPA believes that sections
2.2(d) and 2.2(e) are not relevant to this submittal. EPA uses Appendix
V to judge the completeness of a variety of submittals, and EPA must
apply only those criteria that are germane to EPA's ultimate decision
regarding approvability of the submittal. States routinely submit rules
that address control requirements (e.g., to provide reasonably
available control technology or, as here, to provide emission
reductions to avoid backsliding) which are judged independently of
whether the applicable areas are progressing satisfactorily toward
attainment or whether modeling has been done to estimate the ambient
impact. The factual statements by Ohio EPA personnel that were attached
to the Utilities' comments (e.g., that no modeling was performed in
support of the submittal) do not alter EPA's views that the submittal
was complete.
    Furthermore, in absence of a completeness determination by EPA
within 6 months of receiving the submittal, Ohio's October 6, 2006,
submittal became complete 6 months thereafter, pursuant to section
110(k)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act. EPA does not have the discretion now
to find the submittal incomplete.
    Comment: The Utilities comment that Ohio's proposed revision to OAC
3745-14-05 does not meet the anti-backsliding requirements of 40 CFR
51.900-51.905. The Utilities state that Ohio did not provide
photochemical modeling. They also state that Ohio did not sufficiently
demonstrate a benefit to the Cincinnati and Dayton areas, nor can Ohio
demonstrate actual reductions in those areas. The Utilities state that
EPA Region 5 sent a letter to Ohio on September 20, 2005, in which EPA
said that Ohio could claim reductions outside the Cincinnati and Dayton
areas so long as they ``demonstrate'' that the reductions benefit the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas.
    Response: EPA is satisfied with Ohio's demonstration that retiring
240 NOX allowances will make surplus 240 of the roughly
10,000 tons of NOX reductions made from Cincinnati and
Dayton area utilities by 2006, which clearly provides benefit to the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas. EPA does not require modeling to know that
creating 240 surplus allowances will allow the State to credit 240 of
the more than 10,000 tons of NOX emission reductions toward
compensation for loss of E-Check in 2006. Based on the information that
Ohio EPA has provided, EPA is satisfied that the retirement of 240
NOX allowances from the 2005 control period will benefit the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas.
    Comment: The Utilities comment that today's action will undermine
the Utilities' pollution control strategies and confidence in the
NOX SIP Call rule. The Utilities state that ``random
confiscation'' of allowances undermines the market system in a way
similar to counterfeiting money.
    Response: EPA believes that removing 240 allowances out of a pool
of about half a million allowances will not have an appreciable
negative effect on the functioning of the NOX SIP Call. The
deliberate process that Ohio and EPA have followed in retiring
allowances that had been set aside and not issued to any source
provided utilities ample opportunity to plan for not receiving any of
these allowances.

III. What action is EPA taking today?

    EPA is approving OAC 3745-14-05(C) as submitted by Ohio on October
6, 2006. EPA is approving the withdrawal and permanent retirement of
240 NOX new source set aside allowances from the 2005
control period. This action adds a new paragraph (C)(7) to OAC 3745-14-
05, and re-orders the existing paragraphs from (C)(7) through (C)(9) to
(C)(8) through (C)(10).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly ``Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 14, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Oxides of
nitrogen budget trading program.

    Dated: January 30, 2008.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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 KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(141) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (142) On October 6, 2006, Ohio submitted revisions to Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-14-05 to permanently retire 240
new source set aside allowances from the State's oxides of nitrogen
budget trading program.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-14-05 ``NOX
Allowance Allocations,'' effective July 17, 2006.

[FR Doc. E8-2506 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42585-42587]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18035]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0328; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace, and
Revocation of Class E Airspace: New Smyrna Beach, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface, and removes
Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area
at New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport, New Smyrna Beach, FL. This
action accommodates airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning
of New Smyrna Beach non-directional beacon radio (NDB), and
cancellation of the NDB approaches. Controlled airspace is necessary
for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at this airport. This action also updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport, and Massey Ranch Airpark, and replaces the
outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement
in the legal description of Class D airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1 Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: 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 https://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: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; 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 amends Class D and Class E airspace, and removes Class E airspace
at New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport, New Smyrna Beach, FL, to support
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the
airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 25973, June 5, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0328 to
amend Class D airspace and Class E airspace area extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface, and remove Class E extension
airspace at New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport, New Smyrna Beach, FL,
as the New Smyrna Beach NDB has been decommissioned and the NDB
approach cancelled.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6004, 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 part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends 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 Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
amends part 71 by:
    Amending Class D airspace, at New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport,
New Smyrna Beach, FL, by adjusting the geographic coordinates to be in
concert with the FAA's aeronautical database; making an editorial
change to the airspace legal description replacing Airport/Facility
Directory with Chart Supplement;
    Removing Class E extension airspace as the airspace is no longer
needed due to the airspace redesign; and
    Amending Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface to within a 6.8-mile (increased from a 6.6-mile)
radius of at New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport, New Smyrna Beach, FL,
and removing the extension southeast of the airport, as the New Smyrna
Beach NDB has been decommissioned and the NDB approach cancelled. This
action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport and
Massey Ranch Airpark to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical
database.

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.
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
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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 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 Federal Aviation
Administration 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.

* * * * *

ASO FL D New Smyrna Beach, FL [Amended]

New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport, FL
    (Lat. 29[deg]03'21'' N, long. 80[deg]56'56'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 1,200 feet MSL, within a 3.2-mile radius of New Smyrna
Beach Municipal Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific days and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASO FL E4 New Smyrna Beach, FL [Removed]

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

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 New Smyrna Beach, FL [Amended]

New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport, FL
    Lat. 29[deg]03'21'' N, long. 80[deg]56'56'' W)
Massey Ranch Airpark, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]58'44'' N, long. 80[deg]55'29' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport, and
within a 6.5-mile radius of Massey Ranch Airpark.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 15, 2018.
Ken Brissenden,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-18035 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43145-43147]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

July 21, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC06-139-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc.; DUET Investment Holdings
Limited; Industry Funds Management Limited.
    Description: Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc., et al., submits an
application for approval under section 203 of the Federal Power Act and
request for expedited consideration.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-140-000; EL06-86-000.
    Applicants: Edison Electric Institute; Jurisdictional Signatories
to the Spare Transformer Sharing Agreement.
    Description: Jurisdictional Signatories submits a joint application
for authorization for transfers of jurisdictional facilities and a
petition for declaratory order, pursuant to section 203 of FPA and 207
of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure.
    Filed Date: July 18, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060720-0114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 8, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-141-000.
    Applicants: Cadillac Renewable Energy LLC; Deville Energy, LLC.
    Description: Application for authorization for disposition of
jurisdictional facilities under section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: July 14, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060720-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-142-000.
    Applicants: Atlantic Power Holdings LLC; Trans-Elect NTD Path 15,
LLC; AP Sub.
    Description: Trans-Elect NTD Path 15, LLC et al submits an
application requesting that the Commission grant authorization for the
indirect disposition of jurisdictional facilities.
    Filed Date: July 18, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060720-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 8, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER99-2416-006.
    Applicants: EL Paso Electric Company.
    Description: El Paso Electric Co. submits a notice of change in
status to inform FERC of four changes with regards to the
characteristics relied upon in granting their market-based rate
authority.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060719-0150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1102-001.
    Applicants: Goldendale Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Goldendale Energy Center, LLC submits a revised
Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service
Rate Schedule pursuant to the Commission May 19, 2006 Order.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-506-004.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; New York
Transmission Owners.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and the New
York Transmission Owners submits Second Revised Sheet 944C et al. to
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 in compliance with FERC's June
15, 2006 Order.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-744-002.
    Applicants: Sabine Cogen, LP.
    Description: Sabine Cogen, LP submits a notice of non-material
change in status in compliance with the reporting requirements adopted
by FERC in Order 652.

    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.
    Docket Numbers: ER06-847-001; ER05-1235-002.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Co. submits a compliance filing
pursuant to FERC's directive in the June 15 Order.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060719-0179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-866-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Whistling Wind
WI Energy Center, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: July 13, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060720-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1039-002.
    Applicants: Freedom Partners, LLC.
    Description: Freedom Partners, LLC dba Freedom Energy Partners
submits a second amended application for order accepting market based
rate tariff granting certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1202-001.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Co. submits a first amendment to
its June 30, 2006 tariff filing Original Sheet 20 et al. to Original
Service Agreement 261.
    Filed Date: July 12, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060720-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1246-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Shared Services, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Shared Services, Inc. on behalf of
Brownsville Power I, LLC et al. submits amended market based rate
tariffs.
    Filed Date: July 12, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060720-0065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1248-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp. submits
its petition for temporary waiver of sanctions under Sections <IP_ADDRESS>
and <IP_ADDRESS> of the CAISO Tariff.
    Filed Date: July 12, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060720-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1253-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits proposed revisions to Section 40 of its OAT&EM Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1254-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.;
Midwest ISO Transmission Owners.
    Description: Midwest ISO Transmission Owners, et al., submit
proposed revisions to Section 4.6.3 of the Agreement with Midwest ISO
Balancing Authorities relating to implementation of TEMT, Rate Schedule
No. 3.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1255-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a notice of
cancellation for its Interconnection Service Agreement with AC Landfill
Energy, LLC and Atlantic City Electric Co.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1256-000.
    Applicants: GenWest, LLC.
    Description: GenWest, LLC submits its notice of cancellation of
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2, effective August 1, 2006.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1257-000.
    Applicants: Covanta Essex Company.
    Description: Covanta Essex Co. submits First Revised Sheet 1 et al.
to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2 pursuant to section 205 of
the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060718-0152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1258-000.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power submits a Cost-Based Formula
Rate Agreement for Full Requirements Electric Service dated June 13,
2006 with Wabash Valley Power Association, Rate Schedule 112.
    Filed Date: July 18, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060719-0062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 8, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1259-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama
Power et al., submits an unexecuted amendment to the Agreement for
Network Integration Transmission Service for Alabama Municipal Electric
Authority, under its OATT, Fourth Revised Volume No. 5.
    Filed Date: July 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060721-0176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 7, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-12249 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 61)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15079-15080]
[DOCID:fr30mr07-23]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 242

[Release No. 34-55520; File No. S7-12-06]
RIN 3235-AJ57

Amendments to Regulation SHO

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of re-opening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is re-opening the
comment period on the ``Amendments to Regulation SHO'' it proposed in
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54154 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41710
(July 21, 2006) (the ``Proposal''). In view of the continuing public
interest in the Proposal, as well as to reflect concerns raised by
commenters, we believe that it is appropriate to re-open the comment
period before we take action on the Proposal.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number S7-12-06 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov
). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-12-06. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments

are also available for public inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090. All comments received will be posted without change; we do
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Brigagliano, Associate
Director, Josephine J. Tao, Branch Chief, Joan M. Collopy, Special
Counsel, Lillian S. Hagen, Special Counsel, Elizabeth A. Sandoe,
Special Counsel, Victoria L. Crane, Special Counsel, Office of Trading
Practices and Processing, Division of Market Regulation, at (202) 551-
5720, at the Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is requesting additional
public comment on proposed amendments to Rule 203 of Regulation SHO [17
CFR 242.200 and 242.203] under the Exchange Act. In Release No. 54154
(July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41710 (July 21, 2006), the Commission proposed
amendments to Regulation SHO under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'') intended to further reduce the number of
persistent fails to deliver in certain equity securities by eliminating
the grandfather provision and narrowing the options market maker
exception.\1\ The Commission is re-opening the comment period, which
ended on September 19, 2006, to provide additional information with
respect to the Proposal to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission also proposed amendments to update the market
decline limitation referenced in Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters have urged the Commission to provide additional data
related to the Proposal before it determines whether additional
rulemaking is necessary.\2\ In formulating the Proposal, the Commission
relied primarily on data collected by the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''). NASD collected this data through
confidential queries and examinations of member firms. As a result, the
Commission did not provide the data underlying the examinations and
discussions because it was concerned that the data contained
confidential, company-specific examination findings and discussions.
However, in response to commenters' requests for data, the NASD
submitted a comment letter on March 12, 2007 that provides the NASD's
findings in summary form with confidential, company-specific
information removed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See e.g., Comments of Keith F. Higgins, Chair, Committee on
Federal Regulation of Securities, American Bar Association
(September 27, 2006) (stating that ``without the benefit of knowing
the information relied upon by the Commission in analyzing the cause
or causes of the current fails to deliver and the likelihood that
the proposed changes will reduce those fails to deliver, commenters
are deprived of the opportunity to opine on the significance of the
examination results or the Commission's interpretation of such
information''); comments of Alan Schwartz, Novato, California
(September 19, 2006) (requesting ``strong empirical data for the
existence of problems * * *''); comments of Margaret Wiermanski,
Chief Operations Officer, and Matthew Abraham, Compliance Officer,
CTC LLC (September 28, 2006) (stating, ``What is not clear in the
current Proposing Amendments is any research that would evidence the
anticipated levels of additional improvements in eliminating fails
to deliver.'')
    \3\ See File No. S7-12-06, Comments of the National Association
of Securities Dealers, Inc. (March 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission is re-opening the comment period to
highlight the fact that additional data has become available and to
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on this data. In
addition, in re-opening the comment period, the Commission also directs
the public's attention to additional data that may be of interest to
commenters seeking information on the reasons why fails may be
persisting since the adoption of Regulation SHO: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28,
2004), 69 FR 48008 (August 6, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Prior to the Commission's Proposal, the New York Stock
Exchange LLC (the ``NYSE'') informed the Commission that it conducted a
review of five securities with substantial aged fail positions from
July 1, 2005 through September 23, 2005. The NYSE found that the aged
fail positions in these five securities were

attributable to one broker-dealer. This broker-dealer informed the NYSE
that the fail positions were not being closed out because it was
relying on the options market maker exception.
    [cir] Prior to the Commission's Proposal, the Commission's Office
of Compliance and Inspections (``OCIE'') conducted some examinations
for Regulation SHO compliance and found that some broker-dealers were
still carrying a significant amount of fails to deliver in securities
that they were not closing out because they were relying on the
grandfather provision. One broker-dealer indicated that it had not
closed out several persistent fails in threshold securities because it
was relying on the options market maker exception.
    Therefore, the Commission is re-opening the comment period for
Exchange Act Release No. 54154 from the date of this release through
April 30, 2007.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5870 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15067-15069]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0809]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chelsea River, Chelsea, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Chelsea Street Bridge across the Chelsea River, mile 1.3,
at Chelsea, Massachusetts. The bridge owner, Massachusetts Department
of Transportation (MassDOT), submitted a request to allow the bridge to
open to 139 feet above mean high water instead of the full open
position of 175 feet unless a full bridge opening is requested. It is
expected that this change to the regulations will create efficiency in
drawbridge operations and better serve the needs of the community while
continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: This rule is effective April 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2019-0809 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, First Coast Guard District, Project
Officer, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
MassDOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On November 29, 2019, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chelsea
River, Chelsea, MA, in the Federal Register (84 FR 65728). We received
six supportive comments in response to the NPRM.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33
U.S.C. 499. The Chelsea Street Bridge at mile 1.3, across the Chelsea
River, at Chelsea, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the
closed position of 9.33 feet at mean high water. Horizontal clearance
is approximately 225 feet. The waterway users include recreational and
commercial vessels, including tugboat/barge combinations and tankers.
    The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.593. In September of 2019, the owner of the bridge, MassDOT,
requested a change to the drawbridge operation regulations to allow the
Chelsea Street Bridge to open to 139 feet above mean high water, which
is an acceptable height for all vessels requesting openings on the
Chelsea River. The change in drawbridge operations is due to the
increased volume of traffic across the bridge during peak commuting
hours, making bridge openings up to 175 feet impractical. This change
in opening height reduces the opening time by 2-6 minutes per opening.
The Chelsea Street Bridge will perform a full bridge opening of 175
feet above mean high water when requested to do so. The regulations
require the bridge to open immediately on signal.
    MassDOT reached out to the maritime stakeholders with the change
and received no objections.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided 60 days for comment regarding this rule
and received seven comments all in support of the change.
    There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the
proposed rule in the NPRM.
    The Coast Guard will change the Chelsea River Bridge regulation so
it can open to 139 feet, except when a requested to open to 175 feet.
    Due to the unique nature of the drawbridge operation for this
bridge, MassDOT needs to alter the lighting requirements to better meet
the needs of navigation at this drawbridge. In accordance with 33 CFR
118.85, the center of the navigational channel under the operable span
will be marked by a range of two green lights when the vertical span is
open to navigation. MassDOT will change lighting to allow one solid
green light and one flashing green light when the bridge is at the 139
footmark and two solid green lights when the bridge is fully opened to
175 feet.
    The rule will continue to meet the reasonable needs of navigation
while also improving drawbridge efficiency of operation Coast Guard
will change the Chelsea River Bridge regulation so it can open to 139
feet, except when a requested to open to 175 feet.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard has 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 protesters.

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, it 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 fact that this
bridge will open for all vessel traffic when requested and provide
vertical clearance for all vessels when opened and thus should not
impact maritime traffic. We believe that this proposed change to the
drawbridge operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.593(b) will meet the
reasonable needs of navigation.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 comment from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. 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.
    The bridge provides 139 feet and 175 feet of vertical clearance
when opened on demand that should accommodate all the present vessel
traffic with 9.33 feet vertical clearance in the closed position at
MHW. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule will 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 calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    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 call or email 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, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series)
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of
the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule.

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 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.593 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.593  Chelsea River.

    (a) All drawbridges across Chelsea River shall open on signal. The
opening signal for each drawbridge is two prolonged blasts followed by
two short blasts and one prolonged blast. The acknowledging signal is
three prolonged blasts when the draw can be opened immediately and is
two prolonged blasts when the draw cannot be open or is open and must
be closed.
    (b) The draw of the Chelsea Street Bridge, mile 1.3, at Chelsea,
shall open as follows:
    (1) The draw shall open on signal to 139 feet above mean high water
for all vessel traffic unless a full bridge opening to 175 feet above
mean high water is requested.
    (2) The 139 foot opening will be signified by a range light display
with one solid green light and one flashing green light and the full
175 foot opening will be signified with two solid green range lights.

    Dated: Feburary 12, 2020.
A.J. Tiongson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020-04965 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P