August 21, 2003 1 RS 44 Risk Analysis This analysis does not contain Clean Air Act ( CAA) Confidential Business Information ( CBI) and, therefore, may be disclosed to the public.

In February of 2001, the EPA recommended RS 24 for SNAP approval in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. In 2003, an application was submitted for the use of RS 44, which contains the same chemical constituents and is proposed for all the same end uses as RS 24, excluding motor vehicle air conditioning. RS 44 only varies from RS 24 by the percentage of each constituent within the blend ( Table 1). Therefore, in analyzing the risks associated with the use of RS 44, only the sections of the risk screen that are dependent upon the percent of the constituents are being addressed. These sections include:

  Occupational Exposure and Risk Screening Analysis   Consumer Exposure Analysis   Asphyxiation Analysis   Flammability Analysis Table 1. Proposed Substitute Blend Refrigerant Blend RS 24 RS 44 Constituents Percent Composition Occupational Exposure and Risk Screening Analysis Occupational exposure modeling was performed for the components of the proposed blend to ensure that use of the blend does not pose unacceptable risk to workers. For each of RS 44' s components, in all proposed end uses for both manufacture and disposal, the highest 8 hour estimated exposure was well below the component's long term exposure threshold ( Table 2). Likewise, for each component, the highest 15 minute estimated exposure was well below the component's short term exposure threshold ( Table 2).

The analysis concluded that occupational exposure to any of the constituents in the RS 44 blend, , is not expected to pose unacceptable risks to workers. August 21, 2003 2 Table 2. Occupational Exposure Levels Chemical Long term Exposure Limit ( ppm) Short term Exposure Limit ( ppm) 8 hour TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm)

Consumer Exposure Analysis This section presents estimates of potential consumer exposures to alternative refrigerants used in home appliances. An assessment of chronic exposure resulting from routine refrigerant leaks and short term exposure resulting from catastrophic leaks are detailed below.

The results reported in the Background Document indicate that for chronic consumer exposures during leakage and servicing events, were below the RfCs. Because of the conservative nature of the analysis presented in the Background Document, it is not believed that servicing equipment containing RS 44 would pose a significant risk to consumers.

The results reported in the Background Document also indicate that for short term consumer exposures during servicing and catastrophic release events, the exposure concentrations estimated from servicing operations involving recycling of refrigerators and freezers, dehumidifiers, central air conditioners or heat pumps in the basement, and window air conditioners are below the EGLs. Consumer exposure concentrations estimated from accidental releases ( involving release of the entire charge) from refrigerators and freezers, dehumidifiers, central air conditioners or heat pumps in the basement, and window air conditioners in a room were also below the EGLs.

Further analysis was performed to examine potential catastrophic releases for each of the chemical constituents of the proposed blend. Exposure concentrations for the scenarios were calculated using the box model described in the Background Document, which was adapted to estimate concentrations on a minute by minute basis. The analysis was undertaken to determine the 15 and 30 minute TWA for each component of the blend, which was then compared to the cardiotoxic NOAEL values to assess the risk to consumers.

The chemical composition of the refrigerant in the form of a weight percentage for each of its components, the molecular weight of each component, the dimensions of the enclosed space and the amount of refrigerant released ( assumed to be 90% of the charge size) were used to calculate August 21, 2003 3 the concentration of released refrigerant in the enclosed area. The room size and refrigerator/ freezer or air conditioning unit charge size for each scenario are as follows:

  Bedroom scenario: The bedroom size was assumed to be 41 m3 ( EPA 1994). The charge size for the window mounted air conditioning unit was 567 g ( AHAM 1996).

  Basement scenario: The size of the basement was assumed to be 102 m3 ( EPA 1994). The charge size for the central air conditioning unit was 4.5 kg ( UNEP TOC 1994).

Refrigerant concentrations were modeled under two air change scenarios believed to represent the range of potential flow rates for a home, assuming flow rates of 2.5 and 4.5 air changes per hour ( ACH) ( Sheldon 1989). Additional simplifying assumptions have been made for these calculations. First, the rooms are assumed to be empty, with no cabinets, furniture or fixtures. Second, there is no applied air motion ( i. e., no fan or motion of people). Finally, in order to simulate the vertical concentration gradient that will occur because of the weight differential between refrigerant and air, it is assumed that 95 percent of the leaked refrigerant mixes evenly into the bottom 0.4 meter of the room, and the rest of the refrigerant mixes evenly in the remaining volume ( Kataoka 1999).

The results of the modeling indicate that for all blend constituents, the estimated 15 and 30 minute TWA predicted exposure concentrations are below their cardiotoxic NOAEL/ LOAELs ( Table 3 and Table 4). There are a few caveats that should be considered when evaluating the results of this analysis. In particular, the analysis does not consider opened windows, fans operating, conditioned airflow ( either heated or cooled) and other variables that would reduce the levels to which individuals would be exposed, making this scenario fairly conservative. Hence, under those conditions, it is believed that actual exposure levels would be even further below the cardiotoxic NOAEL/ LOAEL for the 15 or 30 minute period.

Asphyxiation The risk of asphyxiation for the chosen " worst case" scenarios was investigated for the RS 44 refrigerant. This analysis does not consider those conditions that are likely to occur that would reduce the levels to which individuals would be exposed, such as open doors or windows, fans operating, conditioned airflow ( either heated or cooled), or even openings at the bottom of doors that allow air to flow in and out. As such, the assumed " worst case" scenario is highly unlikely and actual exposure is not expected to impose significant risk on consumers.

For the first scenario ( release from a window unit in a bedroom), assuming stratification, the maximum charge of RS 44 necessary to cause an oxygen deficiency in air to 16 percent was calculated. This value is the minimum guideline for respirator usage as stated in OSHA regulation 1910.134, and represents seriously impaired coordination, but not death. Assuming nitrogen and oxygen retain the same relative volumes in the rooms with the balance composed entirely of RS 44, and the pressure of the room doesn't increase significantly with the addition of August 21, 2003 4 the refrigerant, the corresponding maximum charge necessary for 16 percent oxygen in the lower stratum is 2.95 kg. The second scenario ( release from a central air conditioning unit in a basement), the corresponding maximum charge necessary for 16 percent oxygen in the lower stratum is 7.33 kg. Charge requirements to reach the same effect in the upper strata would be even higher because of the larger volumes there. These values are significantly larger than the charges in the scenarios and thus represent no risk of asphyxiation or impaired coordination. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the use of RS 44 in this end use poses a significant risk of asphyxiation to consumers.

Flammability Analysis It is important to consider the flammability of substances when investigating their acceptability for use as refrigerants since substitutes that are flammable could pose safety concerns to workers.

To assess the flammability of a gaseous substance, the molecular weight, the mixing ratio, air exchange rate, and volume of the space into which the charge is released is used to calculate the instantaneous concentration. If the instantaneous concentration exceeds the lower explosive limit of the substance, then it is considered flammable. This means that an ignition source ( e. g., static electricity, a spark resulting from a closing door, or a cigarette) could cause an explosion or a fire when exposed to a concentration of above its lower explosive limit.

The flammability of , contained in the RS 44 formulation, was analyzed using the same scenarios used for consumer exposure analysis. In each scenario, it is assumed that the entire charge of RS 44 leaks into the bedroom or basement. For both the window air conditioner in the bedroom and the central air conditioner in the basement, the instantaneous concentrations of were below their respective lower flammability limits ( Table 5). Therefore, RS 44 is not considered flammable.

Table 5: Flammability Instantaneous Concentration of ( ppm) Lower Explosive Limit ( ppm) Instantaneous Concentration of ( ppm) Lower Explosive Limit ( ppm)

Bedroom Basement Conclusion Use of RS 44 is recommended for SNAP approval in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. Analysis of occupational exposure, consumer exposure, asphyxiation, and flammability has shown that the use of RS 44 will not pose a risk to human health. General population exposure analysis performed in the RS 24 risk screen indicates that for the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, the highest exposure concentrations of are below the RfC values. Therefore, RS 44 does not pose a threat to the general population. Additionally, August 21, 2003 5 atmospheric analysis performed in the RS 24 risk screen showed that the constituents contained in RS 44 have global warming potentials, ozone depleting potentials, and atmospheric lifetimes similar to other chemicals presented in the background document. RS 44 does not pose a risk to the environment and it is substantially less harmful to the ozone layer than the use of HCFC 22.

References AHAM. 1996. Household Appliance Industry HFC Consumption Assumptions. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Chicago. June 3, 1996.

EPA 1994. Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 1994.

Kataoka. 1999. " Allowable Charge Limit of Flammable Refrigerants and Ventilation Requirements." Draft Proposal. O. Kataoka/ Daikin/ Japan, June, 1999.

UNEP TOC. 1994. 1994 Report of the UNEP Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee, 1995 Assessment. August 21, 2003 6 Table 3. Estimated Short Term Exposure Levels for the Components of RS 44 ( Window Unit)

Baseline Flow Rate = 4.5 ACH Baseline Flow Rate = 2.5 ACH Lower stratum Upper stratum Lower stratum Upper stratum Chemical Cardiotoxic NOAEL/ LOAEL ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 30 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 30 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 30 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 30 minute TWA ( ppm) August 21, 2003 7 Table 4. Estimated Levels of Short Term Consumer Exposure for the Components of RS 44 ( Central AC)

Baseline Flow Rate = 4.5 ACH Baseline Flow Rate = 2.5 ACH Lower stratum Upper stratum Lower stratum Upper stratum Chemical Cardiotoxic NOAEL/

LOAEL ( ppm) a 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 30 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 30 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 30 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 30 minute TWA ( ppm)


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17145-17147]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0151]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Cooper River, Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
certain waters of the Cooper River near Charleston and Mount Pleasant,
South Carolina. This action is necessary to provide for the security
and protection of life on these navigable waters near the Arthur
Ravenel Jr. Bridge over the Cooper River during the Cooper River Bridge
Run. This rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels entering the
security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m., on April
1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0151 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Thomas J. Welker, Sector Charleston, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. The developments and planning for official patrol
of the security zone prevented sufficient the Coast Guard from taking
action sooner, therefore the Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to
provide for a comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the rule, since this rule is needed by April 1, 2023. It would
be contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule, as
it is necessary to protect the safety and security of participants
while on the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of

this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because the temporary security zone must be established on April 1,
2023 to ensure safety and security of event participants.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70124. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that
this event requires certain waterside security measures to protect the
bridge and event participants from destruction, loss, or injury from
sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a
similar nature.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30
a.m. on April 1, 2023. The security zone would cover all navigable
waters encompassed within the following points beginning at
32[deg]48'32'' N, 079[deg]56'08'' W, thence east to 32[deg]48'20'' N,
079[deg]54'18'' W, thence south to 32[deg]47'20'' N, 079[deg]54'29'' W,
thence west to 32[deg]47'20'' N, 079[deg]55'28'' W, thence north to
origin. All coordinates are 1984 World Geodetic System (WGS 84). No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in
or remain within the security zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. If authorization to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone is
granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) the security
zone would only be enforced for a total of three hours; (2) although
persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the zone without authorization from the COTP or a
designated representative, they would be able operate in the
surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) persons and
vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the areas during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the zone to the local maritime community by Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone 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
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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
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
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
security zone lasting only 3 hours that will prohibit persons and
vessels from

entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a
limited area surrounding the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge over the Cooper
River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0151 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0151  Security Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Charleston,
SC

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of
the Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches encompassed within the
following points: beginning at 32[deg]48'32'' N, 079[deg]56'08'' W,
thence east to 32[deg]48'20'' N, 079[deg]54'18'' W, thence south to
32[deg]47'20'' N, 079[deg]54'29'' W, thence west to 32[deg]47'20'' N,
079[deg]55'28'' W, thence north to origin. All coordinates are 1984
World Geodetic System (WGS 84).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) in the enforcement of the
security zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) No person or vessel will be permitted to
enter, transit, anchor, or remain within the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP Charleston
or a designated representative. If authorization is granted, persons
and/or vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the COTP Charleston or designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via VHF radio on channel
16. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7:30
a.m. until 10:30 a.m., on April 1, 2023.

    Dated: March 16, 2023.
J.D. Cole,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2023-05839 Filed 3-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39746-39748]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14306]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 77

[Docket No. FAA-2004-16982; Notice No. 07-16]

Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna Systems Co-Location;
Voluntary Best Practices

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Department of
Transportation (DOT):

ACTION: Notification of amended policy.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces an amendment to its Colo Void policy. The
FAA last revised its policy regarding the notification requirements and
processes for evaluation of potential electromagnetic interference
(EMI) for co-location of antenna systems on existing structures
previously studied by the FAA on November 21, 2007. Based on an August
4, 2020 request from the Colo Void Clause Coalition (CVCC), the FAA
finds that further modifications to this policy are necessary and
appropriate. The FAA will add additional frequencies to the list of
those not requiring notice to the FAA when added to an existing
structure with a current No Hazard Determination.

DATES: This policy is effective September 6, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For specific questions related to the
Colo Void policy, please contact the Spectrum Engineering Group, 202-
267-7365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Prior to April 2004, when the FAA issued a Determination of No
Hazard to Air Navigation for proposed construction or alteration of an
antenna structure, the Determination included the following condition:
``This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description
which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power.
Any changes in coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) or use of greater
power will void this determination. Any future construction or
alteration, including an increase in

heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters requires separate
notice to the FAA.'' As a result of this condition, a proponent seeking
only to add frequencies to a previously studied structure for which the
FAA had issued a Determination of No Hazard was required to file notice
with the FAA. They had to file the notice on FAA Form 7460-1 in
accordance with the previously discussed condition.
    On April 27, 2004, the FAA published a revised policy regarding the
notification requirements for co-locating antenna systems on existing
structures previously studied by the FAA (69 FR 22732). The revised
policy was based on a Best Practices Agreement recommended by the Colo
Void Clause Coalition (CVCC).\1\ Under this revised policy, a proponent
was not required to file notices with the FAA for an aeronautical study
to add certain frequencies to an existing structure that FAA issued a
current Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CVCC represents wireless service providers and tower
companies that together currently own or manage the majority of the
radio towers throughout the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2006, the CVCC asked the FAA to consider amending its
policy to include additional frequency bands. The CVCC also sought
clarification of the condition in the 2004 policy requiring proponents
to provide the FAA with an electronic copy of its antenna system
location databases. On November 21, 2007, the FAA further amended the
policy to add the requested frequencies (72 FR 65449). FAA also
withdrew the condition requiring proponents to provide electronic
copies of antenna system location databases because any unintentional
electromagnetic interference resulting under the policy can be
mitigated by condition 2 of the policy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Condition 2--If an antenna system, operating in the
designated frequency bands, causes EMI to one or more FAA
facilities, the FAA will contact the proponent. The proponent must
mitigate the EMI in a timely manner, as recommended by the FAA in
each particular case. Depending upon the severity of the
interference, the proponent must eliminate harmful EMI either by
adjusting operating parameters, (for example, employing extra
filtering or reducing effective radiated power), or by ceasing
transmissions, as may be required by the FCC and the FAA. Failure to
provide successful EMI mitigation techniques will result in referral
to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. (69
FR 22732; April 27, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 4, 2020, the CVCC requested that the FAA consider
amending the November 21, 2007 policy by including additional frequency
bands not requiring notice to the FAA when co-located with previously
studied structures with No Hazard determinations. The frequencies are
those that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has authorized
for use by wireless companies.\3\ The FCC reviewed the bands and
associated technical rules to ensure their use of the bands would not
cause harmful effects to other users operating in the same bands.
Furthermore, many of these commercial radio frequency systems use
technology that are industry and federally approved. The FAA agrees
with the FCC's evaluation, and after careful review and coordination,
has determined that it can include most of the requested additional
frequencies by amending the current Colo Void policy. These additional
frequencies will promote telecommunication and wireless services, while
not negatively impacting either the safety or efficiency of civil
flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ AT&T, a member of the CVCC, separately requested the
addition of the 3.45 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy

    The FAA recognizes the telecommunications industry's need and
commitment to provide wireless services to the public. Also, the FAA
recognizes that it is essential for these companies to speed up the
time frame for build-out and deployment of their networks. However, the
FAA's first commitment is to aviation safety. For that reason, the FAA
finds that it can amend its policy to add most, but not all, of the
frequencies requested by the CVCC. As has been the case with previous
policy updates, the express notice requirements under part 77 of Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are not altered or modified. If
the addition of frequencies is accompanied by an increase in the height
of a previously studied structure, notice must be filed with the FAA as
required by 14 CFR 77.9.\4\ Physical structures located on or near
public use and other types of landing facilities defined in 14 CFR
77.9(d) raise concerns about possible obstruction to air navigation,
and the FAA will handle these issues pursuant to current regulations
and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This citation changed when the FAA amended part 77 in 2010
from Sec.  77.13 to Sec.  77.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this policy, a proponent is not required to file notice with
the FAA to add frequencies to an existing structure that either has a
current FAA issued Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation or
otherwise does not meet notice criteria if the frequency is listed in
this policy. If an additional antenna system must be used to add
frequencies, the antenna system must not be located on Federal or
public use landing facilities property.
    Furthermore, the antenna system must not be co-located or mounted
on an FAA antenna structure without prior coordination with the FAA's
Spectrum Engineering Group. This policy to not require notice only
applies to antenna systems operating on the following frequencies and
service types, as dictated by various parts of 47 CFR. FAA is updating
the policy to include additional frequencies. In some instances, the
frequencies added by this notice are subject to designated power and
bandwidth limitations. These limitations are specified where
applicable. The new frequencies are designated with an asterisk.
     698-806 MHz (Advanced Wireless Service--Part 27).
     806-821 MHz and 851-866 MHz (Industrial/Business/
Specialized Mobile Radio Pool--Part 90).
     816-820 MHz and 861-865 MHz (Basic Exchange Telephone
Radio--Parts 1 and 22).
     821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz (Public Safety Mobile Radio
Pool--Part 90).
     824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz (Cellular Radiotelephone--
Parts 1 and 22).
     849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz (Air-Ground Radiotelephone--
Parts 1).
     896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz (900 MHz SMR--Part 90).
     901-902 MHz and 930-931 MHz (Narrowband PCS--Part 24).
     929-930 MHz, 931-932 MHz, and 940-941 MHz (Paging--Parts
1, 22, and 90).
     1670-1675 MHz (Wireless Communications Service--Part 27).
     * 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz
(Advanced Wireless Service--Part 27; 3280 Watts effective isotropic
radiated power (EIRP), No bandwidth limitations; largest spectrum block
is 20 MHz).
     1710-1755 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2110-2180 MHz (Advanced
Wireless Service--Part 27).
     1850-1990 MHz (Broadband PCS--Part 24, Point-to-Point
Microwave--Part 101).
     1990-2000 MHz (Broadband PCS--Part 24).
     2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (Mobile Satellite
Service--Part 25).
     2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz (Wireless Communications
Service (WCS)--Part 27).
     2320-2345 MHz (Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service--Part
27).
     2496-2690 MHz (Broadband Radio Service--Part 27).
     * 3.45 GHz (3450-3550 MHz Miscellaneous Wireless
Communications Services--Part 27, 3280 watts/MHz EIRP, 20 MHz).

     * 3.5 GHz (3550-3700 MHz Citizens Broadband Radio
Service--Part 96; 47 dBm/10 MHz EIRP, 10 MHz).
     * 5.9 GHz (5850-5925 MHz Dedicated Short-Range
Communications Service--Part 90; 33 Watts EIRP and higher power level
limited to state and local governmental entities).
     6.0-7.0 GHz, 10.0-11.7 GHz, 17.7-19.7 GHz, and 21.2-23.6
GHz (Fixed Microwave Service--Part 101).
     * 12 GHz (12200-12700 MHz Multichannel Video Distribution
& Data Service--Part 101; +50 dBW EIRP, 500 MHz).
     * 24 GHz (24250-24450 MHz and 24750-25250 MHz Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service--Part 30; +75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP, 200 MHz/
500 MHz).
     * 28 GHz (27500-28350 MHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service--Part 30; +75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP (mobile base stations), +85 dBm/
100 MHz EIRP (fixed directional antenna stations), 850 MHz).
     * 29 GHz and 31 GHz (29100-29250 MHz and 31000-31300 MHz,
23 dBW/MHz EIRP (Point-to-Point Operations), 150 MHz).
     * 37 GHz (37000-38600 MHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service--Part 30; +75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP (mobile base stations), +85 dBm/
100 MHz EIRP (fixed directional antenna stations), 200 MHz).
     * 39 GHz (38600-40000 MHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service--Part 30; +75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP (mobile base stations), +85 dBm/
100 MHz EIRP (fixed directional antenna stations), 200 MHz).
     * 47 GHz (47200-48200 MHz, Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service--Part 30; +75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP, 100 MHz).
     * 70 GHz (71000-76000 MHz Millimeter Wave Service--Part
101; +55 dBW EIRP, 5,000 MHz).
     * 80 GHz (81000-86000 MHz Millimeter Wave Service--Part
101; +55 dBW EIRP, 5,000 MHz).
     * 90 GHz (92000-94000 MHz and 94100-95000 MHz Millimeter
Wave Service--Part 101; +55 dBW EIRP, 2,900 MHz).
    In addition, the following conditions also apply to this Colo Void
policy. First, if an antenna system, operating in the designated
frequency bands, causes EMI to air navigation, including communication
facilities and aviation radio frequency services, the FAA will contact
the proponent. The proponents must mitigate the EMI in a timely manner,
as recommended by the FAA in each particular case. Depending on the
severity of the interference, the proponent must eliminate harmful EMI
either by adjusting operating parameters (for example, employing extra
filtering or reducing effective radiated power), or by ceasing
transmissions, as may be required by the FCC and the FAA. Failure to
provide successful EMI mitigation techniques will result in referral to
the FCC's Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. Second,
this policy only applies to current technologies and modulation
techniques (for example, analog, time division multiple access, and
Global System Mobile Communications) existing in the wireless
radiotelephone environment on the date of issuance of this policy. Any
future technologies placed into commercial service by wireless service
providers, although operating on the frequencies mentioned above, must
provide notification to the FAA under 14 CFR part 77 procedures.
    As has been the case with previous policy updates, the FAA will
continue to revise the conditional language in future cases involving
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation to reflect this policy.
Furthermore, this policy applies retroactively to any structure for
which the FAA has issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2022.
Jeffrey Planty,
Vice President, Technical Operations Services, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-14306 Filed 6-30-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P