[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65654-65655]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26096]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0806; FRL-9918-77]

Pollinator Health Task Force; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As part of the U.S. Government's efforts to promote the health
of honey bees and other pollinators, the Pollinator Health Task Force
(the Task Force) is soliciting stakeholder input on best management
practices including pesticide risk mitigation, public-private
partnerships, research, education opportunities, pollinator habitat
improvements, and other actions that the Task Force should consider in
developing a Federal strategy to reverse pollinator losses and help
restore populations to healthy levels. EPA and the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) will host two listening sessions in
order to solicit stakeholder input to the Federal strategy.

DATES: Meetings: The meetings will be held on November 12, 2014, from 1
p.m. to 3 p.m., eastern standard time, and November 17, 2014, from 1
p.m. to 3 p.m., eastern standard time.
    Comments: Written comments must be received on or before close of
business November 24, 2014.
    Request for accommodations: To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the

meeting, to give EPA and USDA as much time as possible to process your
request.

ADDRESSES: Meetings: The November 12, 2014 meeting will be held at EPA,
1 Potomac Yard South, 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA, in the lobby-
level Conference Center. Individuals attending the November 12, 2014
meeting must bring appropriate identification with them to the meeting.
Identification requirements are available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2014/new-id.html.
    The November 17, 2014 meeting will be held at USDA, 4700 River Rd.,
Riverdale, MD 20737.
    Webinar: Stakeholders will be able to participate in the listening
sessions via webinar. Instructions for webinar participation will be
made available at http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection prior to
the first listening session.
    Comments: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0806, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or
persons who are concerned about pollinator health. You may be
potentially affected by this action if you belong to any of the
following entities: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide
industry and trade associations; beekeepers; environmental, consumer,
and farm worker groups; State, local, and tribal governments; academia;
public health organizations; conservation organizations; and the
public.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

    The Task Force was created by President Barack Obama to develop a
Federal strategy to promote the health of honey bees and other
pollinators. Co-chaired by the USDA and the EPA, the Task Force
includes membership from the Department of State, the Department of
Defense, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Department of
Energy, the Department of Education, the Council on Environmental
Quality, the Domestic Policy Council, the General Services
Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the Delta Regional Authority, the Smithsonian, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Security
Council staff, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. The National Pollinator Health Strategy
(the strategy) will include explicit goals, milestones, and metrics to
measure progress. The strategy will include the following components:
    1. A pollinator research action plan.
    2. A public education plan.
    3. Public-private partnerships.
    Another critical piece of the strategy will focus on increasing and
improving pollinator habitat. For additional information regarding the
strategy, please see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b.
    The Task Force is particularly interested in hearing about
opportunities for public-private partnerships to augment actions on
research, education, and habitat expansion and improvement. To this
end, and with emphasis on actions of substantial potential impact or
amenability to scaling, the Task Force welcomes information on existing
partnerships and opportunities for new partnerships, accompanied, where
possible, with implementation details and recommendations.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 28, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-26096 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10609-10610]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03637]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 25, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain

staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: February 18, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03637 Filed 2-18-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15887-15890]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06895]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-0190; Amdt. No. 91-337]
RIN 2120-AK69

Prohibition of Fixed-Wing Special Visual Flight Rules Operations
at Washington-Dulles International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action prohibits fixed-wing special visual flight rules
operations at Washington-Dulles International Airport. This action is
necessary to support aviation safety and the efficient use of the
navigable airspace by managing operations in the busy and complex
airspace around the airport.

DATES: This action becomes effective May 26, 2015.
    Submit comments on or before April 27, 2015. If the FAA receives an
adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, the FAA
will publish a document in the Federal Register before the effective
date of the direct final rule that may withdraw it in whole, or in
part.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-
0190 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact David Maddox, Airspace Policy and Regulation
Group, AJV-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert Hawks,
Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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, Sovereignty and use of
airspace, and Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under
section 40103, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of the navigable
airspace. Under section 44701, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure safety in air commerce.
    This regulation is within the scope of sections 40103 and 44701
because prohibiting fixed-wing SVFR operations in busy and complex
airspace supports aviation safety and the efficient use of navigable
airspace.

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA is adopting this direct final rule without prior notice and
public comment because it formalizes current FAA practice at
Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD). Given the volume and
complexity of instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic, a request to
operate special visual flight rules (SVFR) would be denied. However, no
such clearances have been requested for at least several years.
Therefore, the FAA does not anticipate any negative comments to this
direct final rule.
    The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979) provide that to the
maximum extent possible, operating administrations for DOT should
provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without
prior notice. Accordingly, the FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or
views. The Agency also invites comments relating to the economic,
environmental, energy, or federalism

impacts that might result from adopting this direct final rule.
    A direct final rule will take effect on a specified date unless the
FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse
comment within the comment period. An adverse comment explains why a
rule would be inappropriate, or would be ineffective or unacceptable
without a change. It may challenge the rule's underlying premise or
approach. Under the direct final rule process, the FAA does not
consider the following types of comments to be adverse:
    (1) A comment recommending another rule change, in addition to the
change in the direct final rule at issue. The comment is adverse,
however, if the commenter states why the direct final rule would be
ineffective without the change.
    (2) A frivolous or insubstantial comment.
    If the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file
an adverse comment, it will publish a document in the Federal Register
before the effective date of the direct final rule that may withdraw it
in whole, or in part. If the FAA withdraws a direct final rule because
of an adverse comment, the commenter's recommendation may be
incorporated into another direct final rule, or the FAA may publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking.
    If the FAA receives no adverse comments or notices of intent to
file an adverse comment, it will publish a confirmation document in the
Federal Register, generally within 15 days after the comment period
closes. The confirmation document tells the public the effective date
of the direct final rule.
    See the ``Additional Information'' section for information on how
to comment on this direct final rule and how the FAA will handle
comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also contains
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is
information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

I. Overview of the Direct Final Rule

    This direct final rule prohibits fixed-wing SVFR operations at IAD,
one of the busiest airports in the United States. The FAA has
determined this action is necessary due to the volume and complexity of
IFR traffic in the IAD surface area of the Washington Tri-Area Class B
airspace.

II. Background

    SVFR operations are defined in the Aeronautical Information Manual
(AIM) as aircraft operating in accordance with air traffic control
(ATC) clearances in Class B, C, D, and E surface areas in conditions
less than the basic VFR weather minimums of three miles and 1,000 feet.
Such operations are requested by pilots and approved by ATC. Pilots
operating under SVFR must have at least one mile of flight visibility
and remain clear of clouds. ATC predicate separation of aircraft on
known performance and expected routes of flight. Since controllers do
not know the exact weather conditions where an SVFR pilot is operating,
they generally do not issue control instructions to the SVFR pilot so
that the aircraft is not inadvertently placed in clouds. ATC often will
increase standard separation distances for other aircraft operating in
proximity, which can result in a loss of efficiency and capacity at
airports.
    The FAA previously has prohibited fixed-wing SVFR operations at
airports with high traffic volumes. Section 3 of part 91, Appendix D,
lists the locations where these operations are prohibited. The FAA
first prohibited the operation of fixed-wing aircraft under SVFR
weather minimums within specifically designated control zones (now
designated as surface areas) in 1968. See 33 FR 4096 (Mar. 2, 1968).
The FAA determined that increased aircraft operations in the vicinity
of airports serving large population centers created conditions that
required imposition of restrictions and priorities with respect to
airspace and services associated with those operations, including the
establishment of procedures giving priority to IFR traffic. Thirty-
three major airports were specified as locations where the SVFR
minimums would not apply to fixed-wing aircraft operations. The FAA
stated that ``based upon changing conditions involving safety
considerations additional airports may be designated in the future.''
Id.
    The volume and complexity of IFR operations at IAD now indicate
that use of SVFR operations can potentially affect the safe and
efficient movement of traffic in the IAD Class B surface area. IAD is
located within the Washington Tri-Area Class B airspace. In that same
airspace, Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
(BWI), Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), and Andrews Air
Force Base (ADW) are included in section 3 of Appendix D. From January
1 to December 31, 2013, there were 329,910 IFR operations at IAD, which
included: 162,730 air carrier; 128,636 air taxi; and 38,236 general
aviation operations.\1\ This volume of instrument operations and
instrument approaches justifies elimination of SVFR operations. In
addition to meeting the criteria for elimination, the bulk of
instrument operations are air carrier and corporate turbojet aircraft
flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAA Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS) traffic count,
OPSNET (extracted Jan. 23, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aircraft intending to enter the IAD surface area under SVFR would
sometimes be operating at altitudes used by IFR arrivals to and
departures from IAD. This interference can cause delays for IFR
operations.
    In addition to its location in the Class B airspace, IAD is also
located within the Washington Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) and is
adjacent to the Washington Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), both of which
were established after September 11, 2001, and severely limit
flexibility for VFR and SVFR operations to the east of IAD.
    Although IAD has experienced increasing volume and complexity of
IFR operations since opening, and has been acknowledged on numerous
occasions as qualifying for inclusion in section 3, no rulemaking
action has been completed prior to this direct final rule. The FAA
believes that the volume and complexity of IFR traffic, along with the
safety implications of these situations, require the prohibition of
SVFR operations in the IAD Class B Surface Area.

III. Discussion of the Direct Final Rule

    The FAA is amending part 91, Appendix D, section 3, to add
Washington-Dulles International Airport to an existing list of airports
for which fixed-wing SVFR operations are prohibited. Currently, air
traffic controllers at IAD deny requests for SVFR transitions through
Class B airspace due to the volume and complexity of IFR traffic around
IAD. This direct final rule formalizes the current practice.
    The FAA has determined this action is necessary because of the
increasing volume and complexity of IFR operations at IAD. Fixed-wing
SVFR operations may interfere with the safe, orderly, and expeditious
flow of aircraft operating under IFR in the IAD surface area. This
prohibition also improves efficient use of airspace by reducing
workload for air traffic controllers during IFR conditions and reducing
delays for IFR operations.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Public Law 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this direct
final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this direct final rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    This direct final rule formalizes and codifies current FAA practice
at IAD. Since this direct final rule merely clarifies and codifies
existing FAA procedures, the expected outcome will be a minimal impact
with positive net benefits, and a full regulatory evaluation was not
prepared. Any comments concerning the FAA determination should include
supporting justification.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    This direct final rule merely formalizes and codifies existing FAA
procedures; the expected outcome will have only a minimal impact on any
small entity affected by this final rule.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39), as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465), prohibits
Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate
domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
has assessed the potential effect of this direct final rule and
determined that it will have only a domestic operational impact and
therefore will not affect international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100
million. This direct final rule does not contain such a mandate;
therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this direct final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to this regulation.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this

rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the rulemaking
action in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the rulemaking action, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically,
commenters should submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this rulemaking. The FAA will consider all
comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The
FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if
it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
    As stated earlier, if the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice
of intent to file an adverse comment, it will publish a document in the
Federal Register before the effective date of the final rule. If the
FAA receives no adverse comments or notices of intent to file an
adverse comment, it will publish a confirmation document in the Federal
Register, generally within 15 days after the comment period closes. The
confirmation document tells the public the effective date of the rule.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Do not file
proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such
information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and
marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a
disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM, and identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this rulemaking
action, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be
accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
referenced in item (1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety.

 The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126
Stat. 11).

0
2. Amend section 3 of Appendix D to Part 91 by adding in alphabetical
order ``Chantilly, VA (Washington-Dulles International Airport)'' to
read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 91--Airports/Locations: Special Operating
Restrictions

* * * * *
    Section 3. * * *
    Chantilly, VA (Washington-Dulles International Airport)
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103(b),
and 44701(a) in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2015.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-06895 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) - Information Collection Request (ICR)
Change Worksheet

1. Identification of the Information Collection

Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases:
Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits

OMB control number: 2060-0003

2. Description of the Change in Requirements

In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program regulations to allow for rescission of certain PSD permits issued by the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). We are taking this action in order to provide a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA that vacated the Tailoring Rule. These decisions determined that Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule was not required under the CAA and vacated the EPA regulations implementing Step 2. When effective, this action will authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission.

3. Description of the Burden
EPA estimates that about 20 permittees with Step 2 permits issued by EPA or delegated permit reviewing authorities would request this relief. Sources requesting Step 2 permit rescissions will have completed the permit application process, which on average had an annual burden of 1,006 hours, but until the permit is rescinded the sources remain subject to any monitoring, record-keeping, or reporting requirements imposed by the permit.

Sources that request a Step 2 PSD permit rescission, will have to demonstrate to the applicable permit reviewing authorities that they hold a Step 2 permit, which should be evident from the material submitted during the permitting process. Any incidental burden from this demonstration will be more than offset by the burden reduction from the rescission, which will relieve the source of ongoing obligations under the permit. In addition, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1) a request to rescind a Step 2 PSD permit would qualify as a certification that is not considered to be "information" as defined by the PRA.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19280-19281]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-12-003]

Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency Through Improved
Software; Notice of Technical Conference: Increasing Real-Time and Day-
Ahead Market Efficiency Through Improved Software

    Take notice that Commission staff will convene a technical
conference on June 25, 26, and 27, 2012 to discuss opportunities for
increasing real-time and day-ahead market efficiency through improved
software. A detailed agenda with the list of and times for the selected
speakers will be published on the Commission's Increasing Market and
Planning Efficiency Web site \1\ after May 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/market-planning.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This conference will bring together diverse experts from ISOs/RTOs,
non-market utilities, the software industry, government, research
centers and academia for the purposes of stimulating discussion and
sharing of information about the technical aspects of these issues and
identifying fruitful avenues for research. This conference is intended
to build on the discussions initiated in the Commission's June 2010 and
June 2011 staff technical conferences on increasing market and planning
efficiency through improved software.
    The conferences held in June 2010 and June 2011 produced
presentations on several advanced approaches to market modeling which
appear to have significant promise for potential efficiency
improvements: Stochastic modeling; optimal transmission switching; AC
optimal power flow modeling; and use of active and dynamic transmission
ratings. Significant computational impediments to efficiently and
reliably implement these approaches must be understood and overcome
before benefits can be realized. In this conference, we seek to explore
research and technical steps that would be needed to implement these
and other advanced technologies in the future.
    In particular we solicit proposals for presentations on topics and
questions such as the following:
    (1) Stochastic modeling for unit commitment and operating reserves:
Given the difficulty in formulating and solving full-scale stochastic
unit-commitment problems, what interim steps might be taken to more
intelligently incorporate information about uncertainty into unit-
commitment and dispatch? Specifically:
    [ssquf] How can uncertainty be described in a manageable set of
scenarios or constraints that improve unit-commitment and dispatch
while allowing good solutions to be achieved in the required timeframe?
    [ssquf] If a stochastic unit-commitment model is used, how should
day-ahead prices be calculated, given that the stochastic formulation
no longer produces as part of its solution a single set of
deterministic shadow prices for power at each location?
    [ssquf] How would a stochastic day-ahead unit commitment mechanism
alter current market software for other processes (for example,
reliability unit-commitment processes)?
    [ssquf] What steps toward better incorporation of uncertainty into
unit-commitment might be taken over the next 5 to 10 years?
    [ssquf] What methods can be used to calculate requirements for
contingency reserves and regulating reserves?
    [cir] How can reserves calculations more completely capture the
uncertainty and variability of the system, including forecast error?
    [cir] How can outage probability be captured in contingency reserve

calculations, and how good is the available data?
    [cir] What methods can be used to determine reserve zones?
    (2) Optimal transmission switching:
    [ssquf] Simple optimal DC transmission switching appears to
represent a potentially solvable technical problem using existing
computational resources if transmission operators optimize only a small
number of transmission switch positions. It is less clear whether
transmission switching model formulations that include realistic
representations of reliability requirements are solvable. What is the
performance of these more complex model formulations?
    [ssquf] What additional computational impediments, if any, exist to
implementing optimal transmission switching over a small number of
switches while maintaining reliability?
    [ssquf] What steps toward optimal transmission switching might be
taken over the next 5 to 10 years?
    (3) AC optimal power flow modeling:
    [ssquf] What is the current state of computational capability with
respect to dependably solving AC optimal power flow problems, including
analysis of power system reliability?
    [ssquf] Discussions during previous conferences have centered on
concerns that current system data quality might not allow for an AC
optimal power flow model to be properly formulated and solved. What are
the specific data concerns, and what needs to be done to address them?
    [ssquf] What steps toward use of AC optimal power flow modeling
might be taken over the next 5 to 10 years?
    (4) Adaptive and dynamic transmission ratings:
    [ssquf] Previous presentations examined the use of post-contingency
analysis when determining transmission ratings, including consideration
of availability of ramping capability. How can (or have) adaptive
transmission ratings been implemented?
    [ssquf] Previous presentations also examined how transmission
ratings might be updated in real time in response to ambient
conditions. How have such dynamic transmission ratings been
implemented?
    [ssquf] What are the data or computational challenges associated
with implementing adaptive or dynamic transmission ratings?
    While the topics suggested above are largely forward-looking, we
also encourage proposals for presentations on best practices and other
analyses of current operations with respect to these and related
topics.
    The technical conference will be held in the Commission Meeting
Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. All interested participants are invited to
attend, and participants with ideas for relevant presentations are
invited to nominate themselves to speak at the conference.
    Speaker nominations must be submitted on or before April 27, 2012
through the Commission's Web site \2\ by providing the proposed
speaker's contact information along with a title, abstract, and list of
contributing authors for the proposed presentation. Proposed
presentations should be closely related to the topics discussed above.
Speakers and presentations will be selected to ensure relevant topics
and to accommodate time constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The speaker nomination form is located at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/real-market-6-25-12-speaker-form.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although registration is not required for general attendance by
U.S. citizens, we encourage those planning to attend the conference to
register through the Commission's Web site.\3\ We will provide printed
nametags for those who register on or before June 20, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The registration form is located at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/real-market-6-25-12-form.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to new security procedures, we strongly encourage attendees who
are not citizens of the United States to register for the conference by
June 1, 2012, in order to avoid any delay associated with being
processed by FERC security.
    Following the conferences, a comment date will be set for the
filing of post-conference comments.
    There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A free webcast of this event will be available through the FERC Web
site. Webcast viewers will not be able to participate during the
technical conference. Anyone with Internet access interested in viewing
the webcast of this conference can do so by navigating to Calendar of
Events at www.ferc.gov. The events will contain a link to the webcast.
The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the webcasts and
offers the option of listening to the conferences via phone-bridge for
a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For further information about these conferences, please contact:

Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Bak (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7643 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 23401]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4485-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-4485-DR), dated March 25, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 11, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance under Other Needs
Assistance for those areas determined to have been adversely affected
by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of March 25, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance
under Other Needs Assistance for all areas in the State of Texas
(already designated for Individual Assistance, limited to the Crisis
Counseling Program and emergency protective measures [Category B]
not authorized under other Federal statutes, including direct
Federal assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09117 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P