365 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices Directors, and CSO communities can take to address their concerns. The objective of this guidance is to lay a strong foundation for integrating CSO long term control planning with water quality standards reviews. Reaching early agreement among CSO communities, States, EPA, and the public on the data to be collected and the analyses to be conducted to support the long term control plan development and water quality standards reviews can facilitate the review of water quality standards and the reconciliation of water quality standards with an affordable, well designed and operated CSO control programs. The guidance describes the process for integrating LTCP development and implementation with the water quality standards review. This process is the centerpiece of EPA's renewed commitment to assure that both communities with combined sewer systems and States participate in implementing the water quality based provisions in the CSO Control Policy. The CSO Control Policy anticipates the `` review and revision, as appropriate, of water quality standards and their implementation procedures when developing CSO control plans to reflect site specific impacts of CSOs. '' Integrating CSO long term control planning with water quality standards reviews requires extensive coordination among CSO communities, States, EPA, and the public. Although this coordination is an intensive iterative process, it provides greater assurance that CSO communities will implement affordable CSO control programs that support the attainment of appropriate water quality standards.

Dated: December 20, 2000. J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water. [FR Doc. 01± 113 Filed 1± 2± 01; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560± 50± P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL± 6928± 8]

Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of available draft guidance with request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed and is requesting comment on the `` Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program. '' The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman (National Ombudsman) and the Regional Superfund Ombudsmen (Regional Ombudsmen) were established to provide help to the public in resolving issues and concerns raised about the solid and hazardous waste programs administered by OSWER. The purpose of this draft guidance is to explain the role of the Ombudsmen, their scope of activity, and the guidelines under which they coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. EPA believes this draft guidance will improve the effectiveness of this program by giving the Ombudsmen and those who may contact them a clear and consistent set of operating policies and expectations. DATES: To make sure we consider your comments we must receive them by March 5, 2001. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent feasible; however, EPA will not delay finalizing the guidance to accommodate late comments. ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the `` Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' by any of the following ways: Mail: write to: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA, CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail Code 5201G), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Phone: call: (703) 603± 9232, or (800) 424± 9346. Internet: http:// www. epa. gov/ swerrims/ whatsnew. htm If you wish to send us comments on the guidance, you must send them in any one of the following ways: Mail: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA, CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail Code 5201G), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Express Mail or courier (such as Federal Express, other overnight delivery, or courier): Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA, CERCLA Docket Office, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway #1, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia, 22202. E mail: in ASCII format only to: superfund. docket@ epa. gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Previ, phone number (202) 260± 2593, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Mail Code 5101), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, phone number (800) 424± 9346 or (703) 412± 9810 in the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction The program managers and staff in the Regions and at Headquarters are committed to implementing the federal solid waste and hazardous waste statutes managed by EPA, being responsive to the public, and resolving issues and concerns brought to their attention. In some cases, the individual or group raising a given concern does not believe the official problem solving channels dealt fairly or fully with their situation. In such cases, the individual or group may request assistance from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Ombudsman, an Agency official designated to receive inquiries and complaints about the administration of OSWER programs. The National and Regional Ombudsmen receive many calls for assistance each yearÐ ranging from routine questions about hazardous waste laws to specific complaints about allegedly improper activities conducted at a site or facility. Today's Federal Register notice introduces a policy entitled `` Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' which explains the role and conduct of the OSWER National Ombudsman and the Regional Superfund Ombudsmen, scope of their activity, and the guidelines under which they coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. The main objective in issuing this guidance is to improve the effectiveness of this program by giving the Ombudsmen and those who may contact them a clear and consistent set of operating policies and expectations. This draft guidance would cover only the Ombudsmen who work on OSWER related issues, and staff who supply primary support or assistance to the Ombudsmen. This guidance, when finalized, is not intended to be, and should not be construed as a rule. Use of the guidance would not be legally binding on EPA managers or staff or on other parties. EPA is seeking public comment at this time to ensure hearing the widest range of views and obtaining all information relevant to the development of the guidance.

II. Background The hazardous and solid waste management laws passed by Congress created some of the most complex programs administered by EPA and the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 30 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JAN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAN1 366 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices States. Recognizing this, Congress established a National Ombudsman function in 1984 as part of amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) so that the public would have someone to come to with questions and concerns about the RCRA program. Soon after, we issued the `` Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Handbook'' to help the newly created National Ombudsman administer, and the public understand what to expect from, the Ombudsman program. During the initial years of the National Ombudsman program, most of the assistance sought by the public was for help understanding the complex RCRA program. The Ombudsman spent most of his time responding to general questions and directing requests to the appropriate sources. The handbook reflected this role. When the statutory authority for the National Ombudsman program expired in 1989, OSWER retained the function as a matter of policy. In 1991, OSWER broadened the National Ombudsman's scope of activity to include other programs administered by OSWER, particularly the Superfund program. The National Ombudsman is located in the EPA Headquarters office in Washington, DC. In 1995, EPA created a Regional Superfund Ombudsman position in each EPA Regional office as part of the Superfund Administrative Reforms. The Regional Ombudsmen program, at a minimum, operates in support of the Superfund program, butÐ depending on the RegionÐ may also provide support to other programs, including RCRA, Underground Storage Tanks (UST), and chemical emergency prevention and preparedness. Over the years, the public gained a better understanding of EPA's hazardous waste programs. Requests for answers to basic questions more frequently became requests for resolution of complaints. The Ombudsman function evolved to reflect these changes. The existing guidance no longer reflects the Ombudsman function as it has evolved. In the Fall of 1999, the EPA established an internal workgroup to update the `` Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Handbook. '' In preparing the updated guidance, the workgroup met with representatives of the U. S. Ombudsman Association, and evaluated and considered guidance documents from this organization, as well as other organizations with Ombudsman programs and the American Bar Association's draft Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman Offices. To the extent possible, EPA has drafted guidelines which reflect key aspects of various external models in a manner that supports the Ombudsman's independent operation within the context of a civil service position within the Federal government structure. EPA developed these procedures to meet the specific needs of the OSWER Ombudsman program and they may not be completely consistent with Ombudsmen principles established by other organizations. The draft guidance explains to the public the role of the National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen today, their scope of activity, and the guidelines under which they coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. We believe the draft guidance will provide for effective and fair implementation of OSWER's Ombudsman program.

III. Summary of Draft Guidance The draft `` Guidance for the National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' puts forth our philosophy concerning the basic operating principles and procedures for the OSWER Ombudsman program. Ombudsmen functioning under this guidance are authorized to provide information and look into complaints and grievances related to OSWER's administration of the programs implemented under the following authorities: · Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund · Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), including Underground Storage Tanks (UST) · Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act (EPCRA) or Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Title III · Oil Pollution Act · Clean Air Act, Section 112r The Ombudsman may be called to serve in a number of capacities: (1) providing information and facilitating informal contact with EPA staff, (2) conducting informal inquiries and developing recommendations to address difficult problems, (3) helping to mediate disputes, and (4) making recommendations to Agency senior management regarding procedural and policy changes aimed at improving the program. The goal of the Ombudsman program is to respond to requests in an appropriate, transparent and objective manner as promptly, informally and discretely as possible. The guidance briefly discusses each of these functions, but we anticipate that a significant amount of the Ombudsman's time will be dedicated to looking into issues raised by the public concerning decisions that EPA has made. Because of this, most of the draft guidance is devoted to outlining the Ombudsman's responsibilities in carrying out this activity. Overall, the Ombudsman's role is to listen to all sides in an impartial, objective manner, to provide assistance in trying to understand and resolve the problem, and, if necessary, to recommend possible solutions to senior Agency managers. It is important to note that the Ombudsman does not have authority to change decisions made by program managers or staff. Generally, the National Ombudsman handles cases of national significance. The Regional Ombudsmen handle the more routine requests for assistance and conducts more informal inquiries to investigate complaints. The guidance explains how the Ombudsman will evaluate requests for assistance, and how inquiries will be conducted. Whatever capacity the Ombudsman is serving in, he is expected to act with independence, impartiality and confidentialityÐ the basic operating principles of all Ombudsmen. The guidance provides a brief description of how the Ombudsman will demonstrate these responsibilities effectively and discusses limitations with respect to confidentiality imposed by existing laws and regulations that the OSWER Ombudsman must abide by as federal civil servant. Our goal is to receive feedback on the draft guidance from the widest range of interested parties possible. We welcome comments on any or all aspects of the guidance. Your comments will help us improve this document. We invite you to provide your comments on our approach and your ideas on alternative approaches we have not considered. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide a summary of the reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. Tell us which parts of the guidance you support, as well as the parts with which you disagree. Your comments must be submitted by March 5, 2001. EPA will review the public comments received on the guidance and where appropriate, incorporate changes responsive to those comments. We specifically request your comments on the following three topics related to the independence of the Ombudsman. These issues emerged as key issues during the development of this guidance.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 30 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JAN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAN1 367 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices 1. Does the Organizational Structure of the Ombudsman Program Impact the Independence of the Ombudsman?

One of the main principles an Ombudsman operates under is the ability to work independently in determining which complaints to investigate, how an inquiry should proceed and what are the findings of an inquiry. EPA recognizes the importance of an Ombudsman being and appearing to be independent from the organization he/ she is investigating. EPA believes both the National Ombudsman and the Regional Ombudsmen are able to look independently into problems and facilitate the communication that can lead to a solution. We do not select which cases the Ombudsman will take, nor direct how the Ombudsman will investigate a complaint. We do not interfere with or attempt to influence the Ombudsman as he formulates his findings and recommendations. From the time Congress established the National Ombudsman, this function has been a federal government employee reporting to a senior Agency official. Because the Ombudsman is a federal employee, he/ she cannot be completely independent in the normal course of relations between a supervisor and his/ her employee. Currently, the National Ombudsman reports directly to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER. We believe this is the appropriate reporting structure for the National Ombudsman. The Assistant Administrator for OSWER is the senior presidential appointee responsible for the programs the Ombudsman is looking into and he/ she is in the best position to use the advice of the National Ombudsman. For the most part, each Regional Ombudsman reports to the appropriate Regional Superfund division director, directly or through an intermediate supervisor. No matter what capacity an Ombudsman is serving in at any given time, we have worked to ensure the Ombudsman's ability to operate with maximum independence. The organizational location and operation of the National Ombudsman and the Regional Ombudsmen is a matter of EPA discretion. We agree that it is very important that the Ombudsman be and appear to be independent from the organization he is investigating. Does this structure ensure the appropriate level of interaction between the OSWER Ombudsman and senior EPA officials while maintaining enough independence for the Ombudsman to operate effectively? 2. Should the Ombudsman Have Sole Discretion To Decide How Cases Are To Be Handled?

The guidance states that the National and Regional Ombudsmen have the discretion either to accept a request for assistance or decline to act. While the National Ombudsman and the Regional Ombudsmen work fairly autonomously, coordination in this area is crucial. Requests for assistance may come directly to either the National or a Regional Ombudsman. To avoid duplication of effort, the guidance lays out general procedures for evaluating incoming requests. The guidance requires that before conducting an inquiry that is primarily related to one Region, the National Ombudsman will consult with the relevant Regional Ombudsman. We believe this consultation will help the National Ombudsman make a fully informed decision about whether it is more appropriate for him/ her to handle the matter, to refer it to the Regional Ombudsman, or to decline to investigate. Similarly, a Regional Ombudsman is expected to notify the National Ombudsman if he/ she has been requested to conduct an inquiry that may be nationally significant. The Regional Ombudsman should discuss with the National Ombudsman how he/ she plans to proceed with the inquiry, including the level of involvement that the National Ombudsman wishes to have in the inquiry. We expect that a Regional Ombudsman and the National Ombudsman almost always will agree on who should handle an inquiry. In those rare situations when there is not agreement the Assistant Administrator or Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER will resolve the dispute. The guidance requires the Regional Ombudsman (in consultation with the appropriate Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional Administrator) and the National Ombudsman will each forward a memorandum to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER, or jointly hold a conference call explaining his/ her perspective on the disagreement. The Assistant Administrator or Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER will then make the decision about who should handle the inquiry. Is this the appropriate way to resolve such disputes?

3. Should an Ombudsman's Scope of Inquiry Be Restricted To Protect EPA's Litigation Position?

We considered three alternative approaches to this question. The approach we selected and which is reflected in the draft guidance generally precludes the Ombudsmen from investigating an issue or dispute which is in litigation, i. e., pending before a court. The presumption is that Ombudsmen should not take action on an issue or dispute which is in litigation since that issue is in the hands of an independent tribunal for decision, as provided for by the relevant statute. In addition, the public has access to that tribunal to raise serious concerns. For example, in the case of a consent decree presented to a court, public comment will be solicited on the decree, and the court will consider those comments and then determine if it is in the public interest to enter the decree. In the case of a challenge to agency action, affected members of the public can intervene and present argument to the court, and the court will decide whether we demonstrated an adequate basis for its action and whether we acted in a nonarbitrary manner and in accordance with law. This approach also avoids creating the false impression that the Ombudsman's office is an alternative forum for arguing controversial issues, which would result in confusion, inefficiency, and potentially conflicting statements about the Agency's position. The OSWER Ombudsman program is not intended or authorized to circumvent existing channels of management authority or established formal administrative avenues of appeal. However, we believe that there may be situations where it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate actions EPA has taken, even where those actions are before a court for review. For instance, the Ombudsman may have information to suggest that our action at issue in the legal proceedings is infirm or erroneous. Or the Ombudsman may bring to Agency management information of significant public concern about an Agency action at issue in the courts. In either case, if the Ombudsman believes an inquiry is necessary, he/ she should communicate that information to the appropriate Agency official before proceeding with his/ her inquiry. Such an investigation would proceed only after concurrence by the Assistant Administrator or Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER or the appropriate Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional Administrator, in consultation with EPA's lead litigation office, taking into account its potential impact on pending litigation. It should be noted that this presumption against investigations applies to an `` issue or dispute'' that is before a court for consideration. Thus,

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 30 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JAN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAN1 368 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices the fact that a site or facility is in litigation does not necessarily mean that the Ombudsman should refrain from conducting an investigation of all issues arising at that site or facility. For instance, if the issue before a court is the authority of the Agency to get access to a piece of property, that would not create a presumption against an investigation of alleged deficiencies regarding remedy selection. For your information, we are providing details of the two alternative approaches to this matter we considered but did not select. The first alternative approach removed any restrictions on the Ombudsman's ability to conduct an inquiry concerning an issue or dispute which is in litigation. The Ombudsman would be free to conduct an inquiry regardless of whether an issue or dispute was in litigation. The second alternative approach would restrain the Ombudsman from conducting new fact gathering concerning decisions made based on the administrative record. The Ombudsman would remain able to audit the existing information and data that were part of the Agency's factual record. Under this model, if the Ombudsman concluded that additional fact finding and data gathering were necessary, that would become part of his recommendation. If the Agency agreed with this recommendation, it would conduct additional information gathering by utilizing the appropriate program staff and established procedures. The Ombudsman would be precluded from undertaking separate fact finding activities such as public meetings and formal on the record interviews. This approach would address concerns that an Ombudsman's activities may create a second record outside of the official administrative record, which could confuse and potentially mislead the public and could damage the Agency's position during litigation. Is the chosen approach the most appropriate?

Dated: December 27, 2000. Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 01± 112 Filed 1± 2± 01; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560± 50± P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL± 6928± 3]

Clean Water Act Section 303( d): Availability of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability for comment of the administrative record file for 88 TMDLs prepared by EPA Region 6 for waters listed in Louisiana's Mermentau and Vermilion/ Teche river basins, under section 303( d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA prepared these TMDLs in response to a Court Order dated October 1, 1999, in the lawsuit Sierra Club, et al. v. Clifford et al., No. 96± 0527, (E. D. La.). Under this court order, EPA is required to prepare TMDLs when needed for waters on the Louisiana 1998 section 303( d) list by December 31, 2007. DATES: Comments on the 88 TMDLs must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before February 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 88 TMDLs should be sent to Ellen Caldwell, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202± 2733. For further information, contact Ellen Caldwell at (214) 665± 7513. The administrative record file for these TMDLs is available for public inspection at this address as well. Copies of the TMDLs and their respective calculations may be viewed at www. epa. gov/ region6/ water/ tmdl. htm, or obtained by calling or writing Ms. Caldwell at the above address. Please contact Ms. Caldwell to schedule an inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Caldwell at (214) 665± 7513.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1996, two Louisiana environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Louisiana Environmental Action Network (plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), styled Sierra Club, et al. v. Clifford et al., No. 96± 0527, (E. D. La.). Among other claims, plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to establish Louisiana TMDLs in a timely manner. Discussion of the court's order may be found at 65 FR 54032 (September 6, 2000).

EPA Seeks Comments on 88 TMDLs By this notice EPA is seeking comment on the following 88 TMDLs for waters located within the Mermentau and Vermilion/ Teche basins:

Subsegment Waterbody name Pollutant 060205 .......... Bayou TecheÐ Headwaters At Bayou Courtableau to I± 10 ................................ Salinity/ TDS. 060211 .......... West Atchafalaya Borrow Pit Canal ..................................................................... Salinity/ TDS. 060301 .......... Bayou TecheÐ I± 10 to Keystone Locks and Dam ............................................... Salinity/ TDS. Chlorides. 050201 .......... Bayou Plaquemine BruleÐ Head Waters to Bayou Descannes .......................... Ammonia. 050401 .......... Mermentau RiverÐ Origin to Lake Arthur ............................................................ Ammonia. 060102 .......... Cocodrie Lake ...................................................................................................... Noxious Aquatic. Plants & Ammonia. Chlorides. Sulfate. 060204 .......... Bayou CourtableauÐ Origin to West Atchafalaya Borrow Pit Canal ................... Ammonia. Salinity/ TDS. 060203 .......... Chicot Lake .......................................................................................................... Noxious Aquatic. Plants & Nutrients. 050101 .......... Bayou Des CannesÐ Headwaters to Mermentau River ...................................... Nutrients. 050301 .......... Bayou NezpiqueÐ Headwaters to Mermentau River ........................................... Nutrients. 060202 .......... Bayou Cocodrie .................................................................................................... Nutrients. 060208 .......... Bayou BoeufÐ Headwaters To Bayou Courtableau ............................................ Nutrients. 060211 .......... West Atchafalaya Borrow Pit Canal ..................................................................... Sulfates. 060301 .......... Bayou TecheÐ I± 10 to Keystone Locks and Dam ............................................... Sulfates. 050101 .......... Bayou Des CannesÐ Headwaters to Mermentau River ...................................... Total Suspended Solids (TSS). 050102 .......... Bayou Joe Marcel ................................................................................................ TSS. 050103 .......... Bayou Mallet ......................................................................................................... TSS.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 30 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JAN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAN1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46560-46563]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket ID PHMSA-2013-0161]

Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is seeking public comment on whether applying the
integrity management program (IMP) requirements, or elements of IMP, to
areas beyond current high consequence areas (HCAs) would mitigate the
need for class location requirements for gas transmission pipelines.
    Section 5 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011 requires the Secretary of Transportation to
evaluate and issue a report on whether IMP requirements should be
expanded beyond HCAs and whether such expansion would mitigate the need
for class location requirements.

DATES: The public comment period for this notice ends September 30,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket ID PHMSA-
2013-0161 by any of the following methods:
     E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140, on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the Docket ID at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit

two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note: Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided.

    Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000,
(65 FR 19477).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 5 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 requires the Secretary of
Transportation to evaluate and issue a report on whether IMP
requirements, or elements of IMP, should be expanded beyond HCAs and,
with respect to gas transmission pipeline facilities, whether applying
IMP requirements to additional areas would mitigate the need for class
location requirements. The 2011 Act requires that in conducting the
evaluation, the Secretary shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
    (1) The continuing priority to enhance protections for public
safety.
    (2) The continuing importance of reducing risk in high consequence
areas.
    (3) The incremental costs of applying integrity management (IM)
standards to pipelines outside of high-consequence areas where
operators are already conducting assessments beyond what is required
under chapter 601 of Title 49, United States Code.
    (4) The need to undertake IM assessments and repairs in a manner
that is achievable and sustainable, and that does not disrupt pipeline
service.
    (5) The options for phasing in the extension of IM requirements
beyond high-consequence areas, including the most effective and
efficient options for decreasing risks to an increasing number of
people living or working in proximity to pipeline facilities.
    (6) The appropriateness of applying repair criteria, such as
pressure reductions and special requirements for scheduling
remediation, to areas that are not high-consequence areas.

Class Location

    Regulations for gas transmission pipelines establish pipe strength
requirements based on population density near the pipeline. Locations
along gas pipelines are divided into classes from 1 (rural) to 4
(densely populated) and are based upon the number of buildings or
dwellings for human occupancy. Allowable pipe stresses, as a percentage
of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), decrease as class location
increases from Class 1 to Class 4 locations.
    Class locations were an early method of differentiating risk along
gas pipelines. The class location concept pre-dates Federal regulation
of pipelines. These designations were previously included in the ASME
International standard, ``Gas Transmission and Distribution Pipeline
Systems,'' (ASME B31.8) from which the initial pipeline safety
regulations were derived.
    Class location is determined by counting the number of dwellings
within 660 feet of the pipeline for 1 mile (for Classes 1-3) or by
determining that four-story buildings are prevalent along the pipeline
(Class 4). Design factors, which are used in the formula to determine
the design pressure for steel pipe and which generally reflect the
maximum allowable percentage of SMYS, are 0.72 for Class 1, 0.60 for
Class 2, 0.50 for Class 3, and 0.40 for Class 4. Pipelines are designed
based on population along their route, and thus class location.
    A class location can change as population grows and more people
live or work near the pipeline. When a class location changes, pipeline
operators must either reduce the pipe's operating pressure to reduce
stress levels in the pipe; replace the existing pipe with pipe that has
thicker walls or higher yield strength to yield a lower operating
stress at the same operating pressure; or where the class is changing
only one class rating, such as from a Class 1 to Class 2 location,
conduct a pressure test at a higher pressure. Operators can apply for
special permits to prevent the need for pipe replacement or pressure
reduction after a class location changes. Based on certain operating
safety criteria and periodic integrity evaluations, PHMSA has approved
some class location special permits.

Integrity Management Approach

    Gas IM requirements use a different approach to identify areas of
higher risk along pipelines. The term ``high consequence area'' is used
to identify pipelines that are subject to ongoing pipeline integrity
assessments. HCAs are defined by counting the number of dwellings for
human occupancy or identified sites where people congregate or where
they are confined, such as a hospital, daycare facility, or a
retirement or assisted-living facility, within a calculated impact
circle that a potential pipeline failure could affect. Operators must
periodically inspect the condition of their pipelines in an HCA and
remediate any degradation that might affect the pipeline's integrity.

Comparison of Class Location and IM Approaches

    The class location requirements provide an additional safety margin
for more densely populated areas. However, class location does not
address the potential reduction of that safety margin over the course
of time due to corrosion or other types of pipe degradation. IM
requirements and HCA calculations provide additional safety for more
densely populated areas because operators are required to conduct
periodic inspections of the pipe and because repair timelines are
specified for the anomalies identified within an HCA. Substituting an
IM approach for the use of class locations would allow the operation of
the pipeline at higher pressures while conducting integrity inspections
and remediation to maintain safety.
    On August 25, 2011, PHMSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to seek comments on revising the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to the safety of gas transmission and gas gathering
pipelines. At that time, PHMSA requested comments on whether existing
HCA criteria should be revised to potentially include more mileage or
whether IMP requirements should be strengthened or expanded beyond the
HCAs.
    The comments received on this topic are summarized as follows:
    From Industry:
    An industry commenter stated that no change to the regulations is
needed and suggested applying IM principles to non-HCA areas should be
left to industry as a voluntary effort. This commenter maintained that
because the current definition is based on sound science and is serving
its purpose, no fundamental change is needed.
    The Texas Pipeline Association and the Texas Oil & Gas Association
commented that no change should be made until the studies required by
the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011
are completed.
    From State Representatives:
    The National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR)
suggested that PHMSA eliminate IM requirements and instead require all
transmission pipelines to meet Class 3

and 4 requirements. NAPSR suggested that alternatively, PHMSA should
revise HCA criteria to include all Class 3 and 4 locations and segments
that could affect critical infrastructure.
    The Jersey City Mayor's office submitted a petition for rulemaking
dated March 15, 2012, contending that the current Class Location system
``does not sufficiently reflect high density urban areas, as the
regulations fail to contemplate either (1) the dramatic differences in
population densities between highly congested areas and other less
dense class 4 locations, or (2) the full continuum of population
densities found in urban areas themselves.'' Based on this, Jersey City
petitioned PHMSA to add three (3) new class locations, which would be
defined as follows:
     A Class 5 location is any class location unit that
includes one or more building(s) with between four and eight stories;
(design factor--0.3);
     A Class 6 location is any class location unit that
includes one or more building(s) with between 9 and 40 stories; (design
factor--0.2); and
     A Class 7 location is any class location unit that
includes at least 1 building with at least 41 stories. (design factor--
0.1)
    The Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority stated that their
experience has shown that improved pipeline design and construction
requirements are needed to assure pipeline integrity. The Authority
also commented that design requirements need to accommodate likely
changes in class location, noting that explosive growth in some Alaska
areas has resulted in certain class locations rapidly changing from
Class 1 to Class 3.
    From the Public:
    A comment from the public suggested that PHMSA revise the IM
requirements to potentially include more mileage (e.g., include entire
Class 3 and 4 area in lieu of only the potentially impacted area inside
Class 3 & 4) and critical infrastructure. The commenter further stated
that PHMSA should expand IM principles to non-HCA areas, improve public
awareness and involvement in HCAs, make maps publicly available,
redefine class locations for high population areas, clarify Class 4,
and establish a Class 5.
    The same commenter suggested that IM plans for densely populated
areas (Class 4) and for a new Class 5 encompassing cities with
population greater than 100,000, be developed in consultation with
local emergency responders. The commenter further suggested that these
plans should be available for review during the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's environmental impact study and should be
reviewed with local authorities.

Part 192 Regulations Impacted by Class Location

    There are indirect or secondary links to class location throughout
Part 192. These links include sections that do not specifically mention
class location; however, the sections may reference maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP). If the use of class location designation
were to be eliminated or merged, many regulatory sections will need to
be reevaluated. The following Subparts would be affected:

Subpart A--General
Subpart B--Materials
Subpart C--Pipe Design
Subpart D--Design of Pipeline Components
Subpart E--Welding of Steel in Pipelines
Subpart G--General Construction Requirements for Transmission Lines
and Mains
Subpart I--Requirements for Corrosion Control
Subpart J--Test Requirements
Subpart K--Uprating
Subpart L--Operations
Subpart M--Maintenance
Subpart O--Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management

    PHMSA is inviting comment on the following:
    1. Should PHMSA increase the existing class location design factors
in densely populated areas where buildings are over four stories?
    2. Should class locations be eliminated and a single design factor
used if IM requirements are expanded beyond HCAs?
    3. Should there only be a single design factor for areas where
there are large concentrations of populations, such as schools,
hospitals, nursing homes, multiple-story buildings, stadiums, and
shopping malls, as opposed to rural areas like deserts and farms where
there are fewer people?
    4. Should operators be allowed to increase the MAOP of a pipeline
from the present MAOP if a single design factor is created for all
levels of population density?
    5. If class locations are eliminated and a single design factor
used, should that single design factor be applied to existing
pipelines:
    a. Installed before 1970 (pre-Federal regulation);
    b. That use low-frequency electric resistance welded pipe, electric
flash welded pipe, lap-welded pipe, or other pipe manufactured with a
seam factor less than 1.0 in accordance with Section 192.113;
    c. That include pipe without mechanical (strength) and chemical
properties reports;
    d. That include pipe that has not been tested at or above 1.25
times MAOP;
    e. That include pipe that operates without a pressure test in
accordance with the Grandfather Clause in Section 192.619(c);
    f. That include pipe that is presently operating above the design
factor of a Class 1 location due to the Grandfather Clause in Section
192.619(c); and
    g. That include pipe with external coatings that shield cathodic
protection?
    6. Should a pipeline that is operated with a single design factor
be subject to periodic operational IM measures, similar to the criteria
for HCA locations, including:
    a. Close interval surveys;
    b. Coating surveys and remediation;
    c. Stress corrosion cracking surveys (SCC) and segment replacement
(if a SCC threat is found and not remediated);
    d. An ongoing monitoring program for DC currents and induced AC
currents in high-voltage power transmission line corridors (including
proper remediation plans);
    e. In-line tool inspections (ILI) to inspect for pipe metal loss
(corrosion), cracks, hard spots, weld seams, and other integrity
threats in steel pipe (ILI tool evaluations for metal loss must use
specified-or-greater interaction criteria to ensure defects meet a
minimum integrity criterion);
    f. Repairs to defects within a periodic time interval that is based
on maintaining the pipeline design safety factor with a maximum pipe
wall loss;
    g. Pipe surveys of the depth of cover over buried pipelines;
    h. Data integration of all surveys, excavations, remediation, and
other integrity threats; and
    i. Pipeline remediation based on assessment and data integration
findings.
    7. Should pipelines where a single design factor is used for
establishing the MAOP be required to ensure that:
    a. Pipe seam quality issues are assessed and those pipes with
quality or integrity concerns are removed from service;
    b. Pipe coatings on the pipeline and girth weld joints are non-
shielding to cathodic protection;
    c. Pipe in a cased crossing can be assessed for metallic and
electrolytic shorts;
    d. Pipe defects or anomalies that cause the pipeline to not meet
the pipeline's MAOP are remediated based on the design factor of the
pipeline with a maximum pipe wall loss;

    e. All girth welds are nondestructively tested at the time of
construction;
    f. Minimum pipeline hydrostatic test pressures, based on MAOP and
pipe yield strength, are met;
    g. Maximum spacing for cathodic protection pipe-to-soil test
stations exists;
    h. Additional safety measures are implemented in areas with reduced
depth of cover over buried pipelines;
    i. Line-of-sight markings on the pipeline are maintained, except in
agricultural areas or at large water crossings (such as lakes) where
line-of-sight signage is not practical;
    j. Monthly ground or aerial right-of-way patrols are performed;
    k. The applicable best practices of the Common Ground Alliance are
included in the operator's damage prevention program; and
    l. The pipeline is incorporated into an IM program as a ``covered
segment'' in a HCA in accordance with Section 192.903, which will
include seven-year maximum periodic reassessment intervals according to
Sec.  192.939.
    8. Should a root cause analysis be required to determine the cause
of all in-service and hydrostatic test failures or leaks?
    9. Should pipelines without documented and complete material
strength, wall thickness and seam records for pipe, fittings, flanges,
fabrications, and valves, in accordance with Sections 192.105, 192.107,
and 192.109 be allowed to operate at the single design factor?
    10. Should operators of pipelines that are allowed to operate at
the single design factor complete hydrostatic tests as required by Part
192, Subpart J, and maintain records as required in Section 192.517?
    11. Should pipelines, under a single design factor, be required to
meet additional pipe manufacturing quality controls to minimize defects
such as low-strength pipe, steel laminations, and pipe seam defects?
    12. Should pipeline construction personnel who would work in areas
subject to the single design factor be required to take a construction
operator qualification program?
    13. For emergency response and pipeline isolation purposes in the
event of a rupture or leak, if a single design factor is allowed, what
should the maximum spacing be between the mainline valves on a
pipeline?
    a. Should all mainline valves be remotely or automatically
activated if there is a rupture or leak on the pipeline?
    b. If, during a rupture or a leak, the mainline valves are not
remotely or automatically activated, what should the maximum time be
for a pipeline crew to isolate the mainline section?
    14. What should pressure limiting devices be set to for a pipeline
operating with a single design factor?
    15. If the design factors of class locations were to be eliminated,
and a single design factor used instead, what additional design,
construction, and operational criteria are required to maintain
pipeline safety in urban areas and in rural areas?

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 25, 2013.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-18286 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15320-15323]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0109]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Temporary Change of
Dates for Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District,
Bogue Sound; Morehead City, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the enforcement
period of a special local regulation for a recurring marine event in
the Fifth Coast Guard District. This change applies only to the
``Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix'' conducted on the waters of
Bogue Sound near Morehead City, North Carolina. This Special Local
Regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waters during the event, which has been rescheduled from the fourth or
last Sunday in September to the third Saturday and Sunday in September.
This regulation would close a portion of the waters of Bogue Sound to
vessel traffic during the boat race.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0109 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email BOSN3 Joseph M. Edge, Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0109), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2012-0109'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0109'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes
the Coast Guard to define special local regulations for specified areas
on navigable waters.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of life on
navigable waters during marine events and provide the marine community
the opportunity to comment on regulated area locations, size, and
length of time the special local regulation will be active.

Background

    On September 15-16, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. East Coast Extreme
Corporation will sponsor ``The Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix'' on
the waters of Bogue Sound adjacent to Morehead City, North Carolina.
This special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a powerboat race.
The Captain of the Port North Carolina has determined powerboat races
in close proximity to other watercraft and waterfront infrastructure
pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely
combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, powerboats
traveling at high speeds, and large numbers of spectators in close
proximity to the event area poses risks that could result in serious
injuries or fatalities. Special local regulations are in effect
annually, defining a buffer or regulated area that prohibits vessels or
persons from entering the race course. The regulated area that
encompasses the event location will help ensure the safety of persons
and property during the power boat race and minimize associated risk.
    The regulations at 33 CFR Sec.  100.501 lists recurring marine
events within the Fifth Coast Guard District and marine event dates.
The Table to Sec.  100.501 identifies marine events by Captain of the
Port zone. This particular marine event is listed in the Table to Sec.
100.501 (d.)3.
    The regulation in the Table to Sec.  100.501 line (d.)3 indicates
the Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix would normally take place this
year on September 23, 2012. This regulation temporarily changes the
event date for this year to September 15-16, 2012.
    To provide for the safety of the participants, spectators and other
transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel
traffic in the event area during this event. The regulation at 33 CFR
100.501 would be enforced from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 15-16,
2012; vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive
permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing to temporarily suspend the regulation
listed at line No. (d.)3 in Table to Sec.  100.501 and will insert a
new temporary regulation at Table to Sec.  100.501 line No. (d.)5. This
change will reflect a new date for this year's marine event, i.e.
September 15-16, 2012. This change is needed to accommodate the change
in date of the annual Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix. No other
portion of the Table to Sec.  100.501 or other provisions in Sec.
100.501 shall be affected by this regulation.
    This safety zone will restrict vessel movement on the specified
waters of Bogue Sound adjacent to Morehead City, North Carolina. The
regulated area will be established in the interest of participant
safety during the ``Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix'' and will be
enforced from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 15-16, 2012. The Coast
Guard, at its discretion and when practical, will allow the passage of
vessels. During the Marine Event no vessel will be allowed to transit
the waterway unless the vessel is given permission from the Patrol
Commander to transit.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this
regulation will restrict access to the area, the effect of this rule
will not be significant because the regulated area will be in effect
for a limited time, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., on September 15-16, 2012.
The Coast Guard will give advance notification via maritime advisories
so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and the regulated area
will apply only to the section of Bogue Sound adjacent to Morehead
City. Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be
contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
Additionally, this rulemaking does not change the permanent regulated
areas that have been published in 33 CFR 100.501, Table to Sec.
100.501. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area
before and after the races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems
it is safe to do so. Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area
can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
the specified portion of Bogue Sound from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on
September 15-16, 2012.

    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will only be in effect for six hours each day for two days. The
regulated area applies only to the section of Bogue Sound adjacent to
Morehead City and traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated
area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Before
the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners
can adjust their plans accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 BOSN3 Joseph Edge, Prevention
Department, Sector North Carolina,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about
this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination, under figure 2-1, paragraph
34(h) of the Instruction, that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves
implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 that apply to
organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States
that may have potential for negative impact on the safety or other
interest of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area.
This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of
the general public and event participants from potential hazards
associated with movement of vessels near the event area. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C 1233.

    2. From September 15, through September 23, 2012, in Sec.  100.501,
Table to Sec.  100.501, suspend entry (d)3.
    3. From 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 15-16, 2012 in Sec.
100.501, Table to Sec.  100.501, add entry (d.)5 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.501-T05-0109  Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine
Event in the Fifth Coast Guard District

* * * * *

                                             Table to Sec.   100.501
                [All coordinates listed in the Table to Sec.   100.501 reference Datum NAD 1983]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                (d.) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina--COTP Zone
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Number               Date                Event              Sponsor                    Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5...............  September 15-16,     Crystal Coast       East Coast Extreme  The waters of Bogue Sound,
                   2012.                Super Boat Grand                        adjacent to Morehead City, NC,
                                        Prix.                                   from the southern tip of Sugar
                                                                                Loaf Island approximate position
                                                                                latitude 34[deg]42'55'' N,
                                                                                longitude 076[deg]42'48'' W,
                                                                                thence westerly to Morehead City
                                                                                Channel Day beacon 7 (LLNR
                                                                                38620), thence southwest along
                                                                                the channel line to Bogue Sound
                                                                                Light 4 (LLRN 38770), thence
                                                                                southerly to Causeway Channel
                                                                                Day beacon 2 (LLNR 38720),
                                                                                thence southeasterly to Money
                                                                                Island Day beacon 1 (LLNR
                                                                                38645), thence easterly to Eight
                                                                                and One Half Marina Day beacon 2
                                                                                (LLNR 38685), thence easterly to
                                                                                the westernmost shoreline of
                                                                                Brant Island approximate
                                                                                position latitude 34[deg]42'36''
                                                                                N, longitude 076[deg]42'11'' W,
                                                                                thence northeasterly along the
                                                                                shoreline to Tombstone Point
                                                                                approximate position latitude
                                                                                34[deg]42'14'' N, longitude
                                                                                076[deg]41'20'' W, thence
                                                                                southeasterly to the east end of
                                                                                the pier at Coast Guard Sector
                                                                                North Carolina approximate
                                                                                position latitude 34[deg]42'00''
                                                                                N, longitude 076[deg]40'52'' W,
                                                                                thence easterly to Morehead City
                                                                                Channel Buoy 20 (LLNR 29427),
                                                                                thence northerly to Beaufort
                                                                                Harbor Channel LT 1BH (LLNR
                                                                                34810), thence northwesterly to
                                                                                the southern tip of Radio Island
                                                                                approximate position latitude
                                                                                34[deg]42'22'' N, longitude
                                                                                076[deg]40'52'' W, thence
                                                                                northerly along the shoreline to
                                                                                approximate position latitude
                                                                                34[deg]43'00'' N, longitude
                                                                                076[deg]41'25'' W, thence
                                                                                westerly to the North Carolina
                                                                                State Port Facility, thence
                                                                                westerly along the State Port to
                                                                                the southwest corner approximate
                                                                                position latitude 34[deg]42'55''
                                                                                N, longitude 076[deg]42'12'' W,
                                                                                thence westerly to the southern
                                                                                tip of Sugar Loaf Island the
                                                                                point of origin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 20, 2012.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2012-6314 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 42518]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No.34645; File No. 812-15283]

Cypress Creek Private Strategies Master Fund, L.P., et al.

July 11, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order (``Order'') under sections 17(d)
and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule
17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise
prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1
under the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain
business development companies and closed-end management investment
companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with certain affiliated
investment entities.

Applicants: Cypress Creek Private Strategies Master Fund, L.P.,
Endowment Advisers, L.P., d/b/a Cypress Creek Partners, CCP Coastal
Redwood Fund, LP, CCP Sierra Redwood Fund, LP, and Marinas I SPV, LLC.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 16, 2021 and
amended on December 8, 2021, May 13, 2022 and June 27, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August 5,
2022, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in
the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Benjamin Murray, [email protected] and George J.
Zornada, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher D. Carlson, Senior
Counsel, or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to applicants' third amended and
restated application, dated June 27, 2022, which may be obtained via
the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of
this document, or for an applicant using the Company name search field,
on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may
also call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15133 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29290-29291]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-123-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC, Wisconsin Power and
Light Company.
    Description: Supplement to May 20, 2017 Application of American
Transmission Company LLC, et. al. (Exhibit N) under Section 203 of the
FPA.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-193-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-06-22_SA 2856_MidAm-MidAm
Substitute 1st Revised GIA to be effective 10/28/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1886-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation: SA 783,
Firm Point-to-Point TSA with Energy Keepers to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1887-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 818--Firm Point-to-Point
TSA with Energy Keepers (MVP) to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC17-2-000.
    Applicants: Jacinta Solar Farm S.R.L.
    Description: Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status
of Jacinta Solar Farm S.R.L.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: FC17-3-000.
    Applicants: Nicefield S.A.
    Description: Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status
of Nicefield S.A.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

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

    Dated: June 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13524 Filed 6-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26611-26612]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31307; Amdt. No. 3901]

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 establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) 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 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 May 5, 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 May 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters 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 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 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
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, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, 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/or 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, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. 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 some
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 April 17, 2020.
Robert C. Carty,
Executive Deputy 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
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures 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:

Effective 21 May, 2020

Troy, AL, Troy Muni at N Kenneth Campbell Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt
11A
Troy, AL, Troy Muni at N Kenneth Campbell Field, NDB RWY 7, Amdt 12B
Troy, AL, Troy Muni at N Kenneth Campbell Field, RADAR 1, Amdt 10B
Troy, AL, Troy Muni at N Kenneth Campbell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt
3A
Troy, AL, Troy Muni at N Kenneth Campbell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14,
Amdt 1C
Troy, AL, Troy Muni at N Kenneth Campbell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32,
Amdt 1C
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 13L, Amdt 13
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13L, Amdt 1
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, VOR/DME RWY 31R, Orig-F, CANCELLED
Hemet, CA, Hemet-Ryan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-C
Orland, CA, Haigh Field, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Orland, CA, Haigh Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Orland, CA, Haigh Field, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 6A, CANCELLED
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17L, ILS RWY 17L (SA
CAT II), Amdt 4B
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, ILS RWY 17R (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 17R (CAT II), ILS RWY 17R (CAT III), Amdt 16C
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, Amdt 7H
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17L, Amdt 3A
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17R, Amdt 2C
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35L, Amdt 2B
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35R, Amdt 1B
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17L, Amdt 1A
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R, Amdt 1A
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35L, Amdt 1A
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35R, Amdt 1A
Lamar, CO, Southeast Colorado Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1C
Lamar, CO, Southeast Colorado Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1D
Lamar, CO, Southeast Colorado Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-D
Lamar, CO, Southeast Colorado Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1C
Lamar, CO, Southeast Colorado Rgnl, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 10D
Lamar, CO, Southeast Colorado Rgnl, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 1C
Sterling, CO, Sterling Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-C
Sterling, CO, Sterling Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-B
Perry, FL, Perry-Foley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A
Perry, FL, Perry-Foley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1A
Audubon, IA, Audubon County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-B
Jefferson, IA, Jefferson Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-B
Teterboro, NJ, Teterboro, ILS OR LOC RWY 19, Amdt 1
Teterboro, NJ, Teterboro, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig
Teterboro, NJ, Teterboro, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 19, Amdt 1
Sebring, OH, Tri-City, VOR RWY 17, Amdt 4
Pierre, SD, Pierre Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Greeneville, TN, Greeneville Muni, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 5A, CANCELLED
Greeneville, TN, Greeneville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A
Greeneville, TN, Greeneville Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 5A
Nashville, TN, Nashville Intl, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 13E
Winchester, TN, Winchester Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18, Orig-C
Winchester, TN, Winchester Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 18, Orig-C
Greenville, TX, Majors, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 17, Amdt 8B
Greenville, TX, Majors, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2A
Greenville, TX, Majors, TACAN RWY 35, Orig-B
Kelso, WA, Southwest Washington Rgnl, NDB-A, Amdt 6, CANCELLED
Kelso, WA, Southwest Washington Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1
Sheboygan, WI, Sheboygan County Memorial, ILS OR LOC RWY 22, Amdt 6
    RESCINDED: On March 23, 2020 (85 FR 16243), the FAA published an
Amendment in Docket No. 31301 Amdt No. 3895, to Part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations under section 97.37. The following entries for
Shreveport, LA, effective May 21, 2020, are hereby rescinded in their
entirety:
Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Downtown, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 4
    RESCINDED: On April 13, 2020 (85 FR 20414), the FAA published an
Amendment in Docket No. 31303 Amdt No. 3897, to Part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations under sections 97.29, 97.33 and 97.37. The
following entries for Baudette, MN, and Hardin, MT, effective May 21,
2020, are hereby rescinded in their entirety:
Baudette, MN, Baudette Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30, Amdt 1
Hardin, MT, Big Horn County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig
Hardin, MT, Big Horn County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig

[FR Doc. 2020-09421 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P