PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 1 1 2 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title PCBs: Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA Form 7710 53, Notification of PCB Activity; EPA Form 7720 12, PCB Transformer Registration; EPA ICR 1446.08 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Hazardous Substances, Labeling, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Reporting and Recordkeeping 10. Abstract This information collection requires data that are needed to ensure PCBs and PCB wastes are managed in an environmentally safe manner and that activities are being conducted in compliance with the PCB regulations. The data will be used to: assess the efficacy of disposal technologies, evaluate exemption requests and exclusion notices, target compliance inspections, ensure the proper management of PCBs, and ensure adequate storage and disposal capacity exists nationwide and that environmental releases are managed properly. Data will be made available to EPA regional inspectors, or their agents, for compliance purposes. Respondents include: owners/ users of PCBs/ PCB Items, individuals who generate PCB waste, PCB waste handlers ( owners of PCB storage and disposal facilities, transporters) , chemical analysis laboratories, and individuals engaged in PCB manufacturing, processing and distribution in commerce activities.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. P Federal Government c. P Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b.

Required to obtain or retain benefits c.

Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 814,120 b. Total annual responses 814,120 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 824,778 d. Current OMB inventory 741,261 e. Difference 83,517 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 83,517 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. X Program evaluation f. __ Research c. X General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. O Recordkeeping b.

Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. O Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6.

Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 564 0258 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71747-71749]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4023; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-29-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80E1 turbofan engines with rotating
compressor discharge pressure (CDP) seal, part number (P/N) 1669M73P02,
installed. This proposed AD was prompted by reports from the
manufacturer of cracks in the teeth of two rotating CDP seals found
during engine shop visits. This proposed AD would require stripping of
the coating, inspecting, and recoating the teeth of the affected
rotating CDP seals. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the
CDP seal teeth, which can lead to uncontained part release, damage to
the engine, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 19,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room

285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4023; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-4023;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-29-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received reports from GE of cracks in the teeth on two rotating
CDP seals found during engine shop visits. We learned that the current
borazon-nickel seal tooth coating oxidizes during engine operation,
which could lead to reduced cutting action, overheating of the seal
teeth, and premature cracking of the seal teeth. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in cracking of the CDP seal teeth, uncontained
part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0529,
Revision 1, dated August 21, 2015. The SB describes procedures for
stripping, inspecting, and replacing the seal tooth coating on the
affected rotating CDP seals. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed GE CF6-80E1 (GEK99376) Engine Manual, Revision 42,
dated March 15, 2014. The engine manual describes acceptable repair
procedures for the seal teeth.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require stripping, inspecting, and recoating
the teeth on the affected CDP seals.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 6 engines installed
on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about
7 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Parts would cost about $7,835 per engine. Based
on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to
U.S. operators to be $50,657.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-4023; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NE-29-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 19, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80E1
turbofan engines with rotating compressor discharge pressure (CDP)
seals, part number (P/N) 1669M73P02, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer of cracks
in the teeth of two rotating CDP seals found during engine shop
visits. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the CDP seal
teeth, which can lead to uncontained part release, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    (1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, strip coating, inspect,
and recoat the teeth of the rotating CDP seal, P/N 1669M73P02, in
accordance with paragraph 3.C.(2) of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No.
CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0529, Revision 1, dated August 21, 2015, as follows:
    (i) For engines that have had stationary CDP seal, P/N
1347M28G02, repaired or replaced, strip coating, inspect, and recoat
the rotating CDP seal at the next engine shop visit.
    (ii) For engines that have not had stationary CDP seal, P/N
1347M28G02, repaired or replaced, strip coating, inspect, and recoat
the rotating CDP seal at the next part exposure.

(f) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, part exposure is defined as
removal of the compressor rear frame from the high-pressure
compressor module.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is defined
as the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance
involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges,
except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes
of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.

(g) Credit for Previous Action

    If you stripped, inspected, and recoated the CDP seal, P/N
1669M73P02, using the procedures in ESM 72-31-10, REPAIR 002 of the
GE CF6-80E1 (GEK99376) Engine Manual, Revision 42, dated March 15,
2014, or earlier versions, then you met the requirements of this AD.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Herman Mak,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) GE SB No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0529, Revision 1, dated August 21,
2015 can be obtained from GE using the contact information in
paragraph (i)(3) of this proposed AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann
Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 4, 2015.
Carlos A. Pestana,
Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28898 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56962-56963]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22738]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266; FRL-9916-55-Region 9]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Arizona; Pinal County and Gila County; Pb; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of September 3, 2014
(79 FR 52205). The rule redesignated the Hayden area, which encompasses
portions of southern Gila and eastern Pinal counties, Arizona, from
``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' for the 2008 national ambient
air quality standards

(``NAAQS'' or ``standards'') for lead (Pb). We are making several
corrections to the table entitled ``Arizona--2008 Lead NAAQS.'' In the
Gila County portion of the boundary description, we are adding township
T4S, R14E. Although most of this township lies in Pinal County and is
listed in that portion of the table, a small area in the northeast
corner of T4S, R14E lies within Gila County. Also in the Gila County
portion of the boundary description, we are removing the phrase,
``except those portions in the San Carlos Indian Reservation'' because
there are no tribal lands within the Gila County portions of T4S, R16E
and T5S, R16E. Finally, in the Pinal County portion of the boundary
description, we are adding T4S, R15E. This township, which was part of
the area that was initially designated as unclassifiable for the 2008
Pb NAAQS, was inadvertently omitted from the boundary description when
the area was redesignated to nonattainment.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3964<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2014-20920 appearing on page
52205 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, September 3, 2014, the
following correction is made:

Sec.  81.303  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 52209, in Sec.  81.303, the table entitled ``Arizona--2008
Lead NAAQS'' is corrected to read as follows:

                        Arizona--2008 Lead NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Designation for the 2008 NAAQS \a\
        Designated area         ----------------------------------------
                                    Date \1\               Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden, AZ:
    Gila County (part) The              10-3-14  Nonattainment.
     portions of Gila County
     that are bounded by T4S,
     R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S,
     R16E; T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E.
    Pinal County (part) The             10-3-14  Nonattainment.
     portions of Pinal County
     that are bounded by: T4S,
     R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E
     (except those portions in
     the San Carlos Indian
     Reservation);T5S, R14E;
     T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E
     (except those portions in
     the San Carlos Indian
     Reservation); T6S, R14E;
     T6S, R15E; T6S, R16E
     (except those portions in
     the San Carlos Indian
     Reservation).

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.

    Dated: September 15, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2014-22738 Filed 9-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11701]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1103-000]

BRP Capital & Trade LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
BRP Capital & Trade LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 16, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 24, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04377 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76863-76865]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31075]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0563; FRL-9939-80-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Transportation Conformity
Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for carbon monoxide (CO), submitted
by the State of Minnesota on July 16, 2015. The purpose of this
revision is to establish transportation conformity criteria and
procedures related to interagency consultation, and enforceability of
certain transportation related control and mitigation measures.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective February 9, 2016,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 11, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0563, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR 18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2015-0563. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Michael Leslie, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Leslie, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of Minnesota's SIP revision?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (Act) to ensure that transportation planning activities
are consistent with (``conform to'') air quality planning goals in
nonattainment/maintenance areas. The transportation conformity
regulation is found in 40 CFR 93 and provisions related to
transportation conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.
Transportation conformity applies to areas that are designated
nonattainment or maintenance for the following transportation related
criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter, CO, and nitrogen
dioxide. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area is currently maintenance for CO.

    EPA originally promulgated the Federal transportation conformity
criteria and procedures (``Transportation Conformity Rule'') on
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188). On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised
section 176(c) of the Act transportation conformity provisions.
SAFETEA-LU streamlined the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under
SAFETEA-LU, States are required to address and tailor only three
sections of the rules in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii), and, 40 CFR 93.125(c). 40 CFR 93.105 addresses
consultation procedures for conformity. 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40
CFR 93.125(c), addresses written commitments from project implementers
of transportation control measures. In general, states are no longer
required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other
sections of the conformity rule.

II. What is EPA's analysis of Minnesota's SIP revision?

    A conformity SIP can be adopted as a state rule, as a memorandum of
understanding, or a memorandum of agreement (MOA). The appropriate form
of the state conformity procedures depends upon the requirements of
local or State law, as long as the selected form complies with all
requirements used by the ACT for adoption, submission to EPA, and
implementation of SIPs. EPA will accept state conformity SIPs in any
form provided the state can demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that, as
a matter of state law, the state has adequate authority to compel
compliance with the requirements of the conformity SIP.
    Minnesota concluded that this SIP revision in the form of a MOA
will be enforceable through a number of Minnesota statutes. These
statutes authorize state agencies to enter into legally binding
cooperative contracts for the receipt or furnishing of services. In
this case, these services relate to the transportation/air quality
planning process in Minnesota. Minnesota collaborated with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), the EPA, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Interstate
Council, to develop the Transportation Conformity MOA. This MOA was
agreed upon and signed by all of the above consultation parties.
    EPA has evaluated this SIP submission and finds that the state has
addressed the requirements of the Federal transportation conformity
rule as described in 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. The
transportation conformity rule requires the states to develop their own
processes and procedures for interagency consultation and resolution of
conflicts meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 93.105. The SIP revision
includes processes and procedures to be followed by the Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MNDOT), the FHWA and the FTA, in consultation with the
state and local air quality agencies and EPA before making
transportation conformity determinations. Minnesota's transportation
conformity SIP also included processes and procedures for the state and
local air quality agencies and EPA to coordinate the development of
applicable SIPs with the MPOs, the state Department of Transportation
(DOT), and the U.S. DOT, and requires written commitments to control
measures and mitigation measures (40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and
93.125(c)).
    EPA's review of the Minnesota SIP revision indicates that it is
consistent with the Act as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations
(40 CFR part 93 subpart A and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures
for transportation conformity and interagency consultation and
therefore EPA has concluded that the submittal is approvable.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of
Minnesota, for the purpose of establishing transportation conformity
criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and
enforceable commitments to implement transportation related control and
mitigation measures.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective February 9,
2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by January 11, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective
February 9, 2016.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: November 23, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.1237 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1237  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (f) Approval--On July 16, 2015, the State of Minnesota submitted a
revision to their Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan. The
submittal establishes transportation conformity criteria and procedures
related to interagency consultation, and the enforceability of certain
transportation related control and mitigation measures.

[FR Doc. 2015-31075 Filed 12-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 9468]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP19-352-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: RP19-352 Rate Case Refund Report.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-508-000.
    Applicants: BBT AlaTenn, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Company name change normal to
be effective 3/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-509-000.
    Applicants: BBT Midla, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Company name change normal to
be effective 3/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-510-000.
    Applicants: BBT Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Company name change to be
effective 3/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-511-000.
    Applicants: Talos Exploration, LLC,ILX Prospect Diller, LLC,ILX
Prospect Marmalard, LLC,ILX Prospect MC79, LLC,ILX Prospect
Niedermeyer, LLC,ILX Prospect Odd Job, LLC,ILX Prospect Caddis, LLC,ILX
Prospect Crown & Anchor, LLC,ILX Prospect Dantzler, LLC,ILX Prospect
Claiborne, LLC,ILX I Sales & Transport, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition For Limited Waiver, et al. of Talos
Exploration, LLC, et al. under RP20-511.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). 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: February 11, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03188 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7562-7564]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385, 390, and 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167]
RIN 2126-AB20

Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its intent to move forward with the Electronic
On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents rulemaking
(EOBR 2) by preparing a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM). To augment the Agency's efforts to obtain comprehensive data
to support this SNPRM, FMCSA plans to do the following: hold listening
sessions on the issue of driver harassment; task the Motor Carrier
Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to assist in developing material to
support this

rulemaking, including technical specifications for EOBRs and their
potential to be used to harass drivers; and conduct research by
surveying drivers, carriers, and vendors regarding harassment issues.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public as well as
documents mentioned in this notice are available for inspection or
copying in the docket, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167, and at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Ground floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at (202)
366-5370.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Background

    The following discussion summarizes the recent regulatory history
of the agency's EOBR initiatives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a more detailed history of the program containing the
initial regulatory actions by the agency see EOBR 1, discussed below
in this section (75 FR 17208).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EOBR 1

    On April 5, 2010, the Agency issued a final rule (75 FR 17208) that
provided new technical requirements for EOBRs. The EOBR final rule also
required the limited, remedial use of EOBRs by any motor carrier found,
during a single compliance review, to have a 10 percent violation rate
for any hours-of-service (HOS) regulation listed in a new Appendix C of
49 CFR part 385. The final rule required EOBRs on all of the motor
carrier's commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) for a period of 2 years. The
compliance date for the final rule was June 4, 2012.
    The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
challenged the final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit. OOIDA raised several concerns relating to EOBRs and
their potential use for driver harassment. On August 26, 2011, the
Court vacated the entire final rule. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers
Ass'n et al. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d. 580 (7th
Cir. 2011). The Court held that, contrary to statutory requirements,
the Agency failed to address the issue of driver harassment, including
how EOBRs could potentially be used to harass drivers and ways to
ensure that EOBRs were not used to harass drivers. The basis for the
decision was FMCSA's failure to directly address a requirement in 49
U.S.C. 31137(a) which reads as follows:

    USE OF MONITORING DEVICES. If the Secretary of Transportation
prescribes a regulation about the use of monitoring devices on
commercial motor vehicles to increase compliance by operators of the
vehicles with hours of service regulations of the Secretary, the
regulation shall ensure that the devices are not used to harass
vehicle operators. However, the devices may be used to monitor
productivity of the operators. (Emphasis added.)).

    The court's expectation about how the Agency should address
harassment and productivity under the statutory directive included the
following:

    ``In addition, an adequate explanation that addresses the
distinction between productivity and harassment must also describe
what precisely it is that will prevent harassment from occurring.
The Agency needs to consider what types of harassment already exist,
how frequently and to what extent harassment happens, and how an
electronic device capable of contemporaneous transmission of
information to a motor carrier will guard against (or fail to guard
against) harassment. A study of these problems with EOBRs already in
use, and a comparison with carriers that do not use these devices,
might be one obvious way to measure any effect that requiring EOBRs
might have on driver harassment'' (Id. at 588-89).

    The Court also noted that the Agency had not estimated the safety
benefits of EOBRs currently in use and how much EOBRs increased
compliance.
    As a result of the vacatur, carriers relying on electronic devices
to monitor HOS compliance are currently governed by the Agency's
previous rules regarding the use of automatic on-board recording
devices (49 CFR 395.15). The requirements set forth in 49 CFR 395.15,
were not affected by the Seventh Circuit's decision regarding the
technical specifications set out in 49 CFR 395.16 in the EOBR 1 Final
Rule.

EOBR 2

    On February 1, 2011, the Agency published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to expand the scope of EOBR use to a
broader population of motor carriers (EOBR 2) (76 FR 5537). The EOBR 2
NPRM proposed that, within 3 years of the effective date of the final
rule, all motor carriers currently required to maintain records of duty
status (RODS) for HOS recordkeeping would be required to use EOBRs.
    Due to the pending EOBR 1 litigation, the Agency extended the EOBR
2 public comment period and, in recognition of issues raised in oral
argument before the Seventh Circuit, expressly invited comment on the
issue of driver harassment. A notice published on March 10, 2011 (76 FR
13121) extended the public comment period for the EOBR 2 NPRM to May
23, 2011. On April 13, 2011, the Agency published a notice specifically
inviting comments on the EOBR2 rulemaking to address harassment (76 FR
20611). In light of the litigation challenging the Agency's treatment
of driver harassment in EOBR 1, FMCSA wished to ensure that interested
parties had a full opportunity to consider the harassment issue in the
active EOBR 2 rulemaking.

Planned Activities

EOBR 2 SNPRM

    Because the EOBR 2 rule relied on the technical specifications
provided in EOBR 1, where this final rule was vacated, the Agency must
again proposed and seek comment on new technical standards into the CFR
before any final rule concerning use of an EOBR device is issued. These
proposed technical standards would take into account the official MCSAC
recommendations, as well as public comments.
    FMCSA takes this opportunity to declare its intention to proceed
with the EOBR 2 rulemaking. The Agency is preparing an SNPRM to propose
technical standards for an EOBR, address driver harassment issues,
propose requirements for retaining HOS supporting documents, and
provide clarification and request further comments on several of the
proposals. Additionally, the Agency will hold public listening
sessions; work with its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee
(MCSAC); and use driver, carrier, and vendor surveys to obtain all the
stakeholder information needed to discuss issues involving driver
harassment.

Public Listening Sessions

    FMCSA will hold public listening sessions to discuss issues
involving the driver harassment issue. The public will have an
opportunity to speak about this issue and provide the Agency with
information on how to address harassment. All public comments will be
placed in the docket of this rulemaking. Details concerning the
schedule and locations for the listening sessions, as well as
procedural information for participants, will follow in a subsequent
Federal Register notice.

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Task

    MCSAC is an advisory committee to FMCSA.
    In June 2011, a MCSAC subcommittee began work on Task 11-04
(Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR) Communications Protocols,
Security, Interfaces, and Display of Hours-of-Service Data During
Driver/Vehicle Inspections and Safety Investigations). The subcommittee
examined technical issues relating to the electronic transfer of HOS
information from CMVs to law enforcement personnel at the roadside
raised by the EOBR 1 final rule. The subcommittee met several times and
made its final report to the full committee on December 5 and 6, 2011.
On December 16, 2011, the full committee made an official
recommendation to FMCSA.
    FMCSA will task MCSAC to make recommendations related to the EOBR2
rulemaking. Details will follow in a subsequent Federal Register
notice.
    More information about these MCSAC meetings, recommendations, and
task orders can be found at http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/meeting.htm.

Research

    Subject to Office of Management and Budget approval, FMCSA will
initiate OMB-approved survey of drivers regarding harassment
experiences and concerns and OMB-approved surveys for carriers and
vendors regarding harassment. Details will follow in subsequent Federal
Register notices.

EOBR 1 Final Rule Withdrawal

    Based on the Seventh Circuit's decision, the Agency plans to
publish a final rule in the Federal Register announcing the removal of
the regulatory text in 49 CFR parts 350, 385, 395, 396 adopted in EOBR
1 and subsequently vacated by the Seventh Circuit decision. This will
complete the actions required by the Court.

    Issued on: February 7, 2012.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-3265 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1753-1755]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-1067]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone, Potomac and Anacostia Rivers; Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone
encompassing certain waters of the Potomac River and Anacostia River.
This action is necessary to safeguard persons and property, and prevent
terrorist acts or incidents. This rule prohibits vessels and people
from entering the security zone and requires vessels and persons in the
security zone to depart the security zone, unless specifically exempt
under the provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.

DATES: This rule is effective from January 29, 2013 until January 30,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-1067. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Sector Baltimore Waterways
Management Division, 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:

Table of Acronyms

 DHS Department of Homeland Security
 FR Federal Register
 NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impractical and contrary to
public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. The Coast
Guard was unable to publish a NPRM and hold a comment period for this
rulemaking due to the short time period between event planners
notifying the Coast Guard of the event and publication of this security
zone. As such, it is impracticable to provide a full comment period due
to lack of time. Furthermore, delaying the effective date of this
security zone would be contrary to the public interest given the high
risk of injury and damage to the President, U.S. Capitol Building,
high-ranking United States officials, and the public.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate
action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life,
property and the environment, therefore, a 30-day notice period is
impractical. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
security zone's intended objectives of protecting the President, U.S.
Capitol Building, high-ranking United States officials and the public,
as it would introduce vulnerability to the maritime safety and security
of the President, U.S. Capitol Building and high-ranking United States
officials, as well as that of the general public.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The President will address the nation on January 29, 2013. During
this event, a gathering of high-ranking United States officials is
expected to take place at the U. S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC,
in close proximity to navigable waterways within the Captain of the
Port's Area of Responsibility.
    The Coast Guard has given each Coast Guard Captain of the Port the
ability to implement comprehensive port security regimes designed to
safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities while still
sustaining the flow of commerce. The Captain of the Port Baltimore is
establishing this security zone to protect the President, U.S. Capitol
Building, high-ranking United States officials and the public, mitigate
potential terrorist acts, and enhance public and maritime safety and
security in order to safeguard life, property, and the environment on
or near the navigable waters.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    Through this regulation, the Coast Guard will establish a security
zone. The security zone will be in effect from 4 p.m. on January 29,
2013 until 2 a.m. on January 30, 2013. The security zone will include
all navigable waters of the

Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the north by the
Francis Scott Key (U.S. Route 29) Bridge at mile 113.0, downstream to
and bounded on the south between the Virginia shoreline and the
District of Columbia shoreline along latitude 38[deg]50'00'' N,
including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin; and all
waters of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on
the north by the 11th Street (I-295) Bridge at mile 2.1, downstream to
and bounded on the south by its confluence with the Potomac River
(datum NAD 1983). This location is entirely within the Area of
Responsibility of the Captain of the Port Baltimore, as set forth at 33
CFR 3.25-15.
    This rule requires any unauthorized persons in the regulated area
at the time this security zone is implemented to immediately proceed
out of the zone. Except for vessels at berth, mooring, or at anchor,
this rule temporarily requires all vessels in the designated security
zone as defined by this rule to immediately depart the security zone.
Entry into this security zone is prohibited, unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore. U.S. Coast Guard
personnel will be provided to prevent the movement of unauthorized
persons into the zone. Federal, state, and local agencies may assist
the Coast Guard in the enforcement of this rule. The Coast Guard will
issue Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone and
notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices
will continue until the event is complete.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this security
zone restricts vessel traffic through the affected area, the effect of
this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration
that the regulated area will be in effect. Given the time of year this
event is scheduled, vessel traffic is expected to be minimal. In
addition, notifications will be made to the maritime community so
mariners may adjust their plans accordingly.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to operate or transit through or within the security zone
during the enforcement period. The security zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. The security zone is of limited duration.
Although the security zone will apply to the entire width of the
Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, traffic may be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port Baltimore.
Additionally, given the time of year this event is scheduled, vessel
traffic is expected to be minimal. Before the effective period,
maritime advisories will be widely available to the maritime community.

3. 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 rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. 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.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishing a temporary security zone.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. This rule involves
establishing a temporary security zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-1067 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-1067  Security Zone, Potomac and Anacostia Rivers;
Washington, DC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone:
    (1) All waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline,
bounded on the north by the Francis Scott Key (U.S. Route 29) Bridge at
mile 113.0, downstream to and bounded on the south between the Virginia
shoreline and the District of Columbia shoreline along latitude
38[deg]50'00'';N, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal
Basin; and
    (2) All waters of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline,
bounded on the north by the 11th Street (I-295) Bridge at mile 2.1,
downstream to and bounded on the south by its confluence with the
Potomac River. All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Regulations. The general security zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.33 apply to the security zone created by this temporary
section, Sec.  165.T05-1067.
    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing security zones found in 33 CFR 165.33.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels
already at berth, mooring, or anchor at the time the security zone is
implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All vessels
underway within this security zone at the time it is implemented are to
depart the zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone must
first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or
his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area,
the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing
this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other
Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his
designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course while within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act
on his behalf.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Effective Period. This rule is effective from 4 p.m. on January
29, 2013 until 2 a.m. on January 30, 2013.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 4 p.m.
on January 29, 2013 until 2 a.m. on January 30, 2013.

    Dated: December 16, 2012.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2013-00217 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 33203]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-P-1107]

OXIPLEX/SP Gel; FzioMed, Incorporated's Petition for Review of
the Food and Drug Administration's Denial of Premarket Approval; Notice
of Meeting Cancellation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The meeting of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel
scheduled for June 10, 2014, is cancelled. This meeting was announced
in the Federal Register of May 14, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela D. Scott, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3611,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting of the Medical Devices Dispute
Resolution Panel (the panel) of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee
scheduled for June 10, 2014, is cancelled. On June 10, 2014, the panel
was slated to discuss the Center for Device and Radiological Health's
(CDRH's) denial of a premarket approval application (PMA) for OXIPLEX
submitted by FzioMed, the sponsor for OXIPLEX.
    On August 21, 2007, FzioMed submitted a PMA (PMA P070023) for
OXIPLEX. OXIPLEX is an absorbable, clear, viscoelastic gel designed to
be applied in the lower back during lumbar spine surgery. The device's
proposed indication is for use as a surgical adjuvant in adult patients
with primary leg pain and severe baseline back pain undergoing first
surgical intervention (i.e., open or endoscopic posterior lumbar
laminectomy, laminotomy, or discectomy) for diagnosed unilateral
herniation of lumbar intervertebral disc material associated with
radiculopathy. The proposed intended use is for one-time use, up to 3
milliliters, after hemostasis during wound closure, as an adjunct to
primary surgical intervention to improve patient outcomes by reducing
leg pain, back pain, and neurologic symptoms.
    On October 9, 2012, CDRH issued a decision upholding a not
approvable letter in response to the PMA P070023 for OXIPLEX. CDRH
determined that PMA P070023 is not approvable based on its conclusion
that the data and information offered in support of the PMA do not
provide a reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective
under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in
the proposed labeling, as required by section 515(d)(2) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(2)).
    On November 5, 2012, FzioMed requested administrative review of
CDRH's decision to uphold its not approvable letter. Submitted in the
form of a petition for reconsideration under 21 CFR 10.33 (see Sec.
814.44(f)(2) (21 CFR 814.44(f)(2)), FzioMed's petition for review
(petition) stated that, in accordance with Sec.  814.44(f), FzioMed
considered the decision to uphold the not approvable letter to be a
denial of approval of PMA P070023 under Sec.  814.45). Under section
515(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, FzioMed requested review of this denial
under section 515(g)(2) of the FD&C Act.
    Accordingly, as required by Sec.  814.45(e)(3), CDRH issued an
order denying approval of the PMA for OXIPLEX on October 21, 2013.
Under section 515(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, on October 25, 2013, FDA
granted FzioMed's petition for review of the order denying PMA P070023.
In the Federal Register of May 14, 2014 (79 FR 27623), the Office of
the Commissioner referred PMA P070023 and the basis for the order
denying its approval to the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel,
and announced that the panel was scheduled to meet to discuss the
clinical and scientific issues raised by CDRH's Denial Order on June
10, 2014.
    Since the panel meeting announcement on May 14, 2014, the parties
have agreed that the panel meeting should not go forward on June 10,
2014. The Agency is thereby cancelling the June 10, 2014, meeting.

    Dated: June 5, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-13565 Filed 6-6-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29380-29383]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9536; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-27]

Establishment of Temporary Restricted Areas R-2509E, R-2509W, and
R-2509N; Twentynine Palms, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes temporary restricted areas (Temp RAs)
R-2509E, R-2509W, and R-2509N, Twentynine Palms, CA, to support a
Marine Expeditionary Brigade level Large Scale Exercise (LSE) planned
for existing and newly acquired training lands at Marine Corps Air
Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms from August 7 to August
26, 2017.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, August 7, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish the temporary restricted area airspace
at Twentynine Palms, CA, to support a Marine Expeditionary Brigade
level LSE and accommodate essential USMC training requirements.

History

    On February 23, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (82 FR 11414), Docket No. FAA-
2016-9536, to establish Temp RAs R-2509E, R-2509W, and R-2509N,
Twentynine Palms, CA, to support a Marine Expeditionary Brigade level
LSE. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Five comments
were received; four from individuals and one from Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA).

Discussion of Comments

    In their response to the NPRM, the commenters raised several
substantive issues. The commenters contend the temporary restricted
airspace design could be managed through alternative airspace
management methods like temporary flight restrictions or controlled
firing areas. Additionally, commenters contended that the location and
lack of knowledge of temporary restricted areas would have a negative
impact on general aviation aircraft. One commenter supported the
exercise to allow warfighters the opportunity to practice tactics in
preparation for actual war. The comments have been categorized in the
following groupings: (1) Alternative designation of the airspace as a
temporary flight restriction (TFR) or as a controlled firing area
(CFA); (2) the general concern that R-2509W creates a narrow funneling
of traffic at a known ``choke point'' of airspace; and (3) the need for
advanced notification of pilots of activation and awareness of
temporary restricted areas.

    Having considered the issues and recommendations provided by the
commenters, the FAA offers the following responses.

Designation of the Airspace as a TFR or as a CFA

    Two commenters suggested the airspace would be better served as TFR
because a TFR could be depicted graphically and would provide better
notification to pilots. The commenters noted perceived limitations in
the NOTAM system used to inform pilots of temporary restricted areas
established under part 73.
    TFRs under 14 CFR 91.137 are not used for any pre-planned military
operations involving hazardous activity. Additionally, a TFR issued
under Sec.  91.137 involves restrictions and limitations that are not
appropriately applied to military operations. The fact that commenters
perceive that a TFR permits better notification to a pilot about
restricted airspace is not sufficient to warrant using Sec.  91.137 for
activity that it was not intended to cover.
    One commenter suggested a CFA as an alternative. CFAs are not
intended for aerial activities which involve aircraft ordinance
delivery which this LSE will involve.

R-2509W Creates a Narrow Funneling of Traffic at a Known ``Choke
Point'' of Airspace

    One commenter stated the corridor created by restricted airspace in
the high desert of Southern California is already very narrow and
congested and funnels high amounts of traffic today. The commenter
noted that adding restricted areas that will reduce the corridor will
exacerbate the problem. The commenter suggested expanding the existing
restricted area into one of the already established military operations
areas (MOA) on the eastern side of R-2509 and away from the already
narrow funnel in the west. AOPA contends that the proposed restricted
areas create an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to general aviation
pilots. AOPA specifically noted that, because the proposed R-2509W
overlies a valley, it will force general aviation pilots to fly closer
to precipitous rising terrain and will provide a greater challenge to
pilots needing to turn around safely. AOPA also commented that federal
airway V-386 which is heavily utilized by general aviation pilots will
be impacted by the proposed restricted area. AOPA contended that the
restricted area would force many pilots to deviate further to the west
and into more complex and congested airspace. AOPA also noted that the
FAA previously withdrew a proposal for the same temporary restricted
areas because efforts to mitigate the aeronautical impacts were
unsuccessful.
    After the 2016 NPRM was withdrawn, LA Center negotiated certain
mitigations with the Marine Corps in response to LA Center's
aeronautical study of the impact of the temporary restricted areas to
non-participating aircraft operating within the corridor west of the
proposed restricted areas. In response to the aeronautical study, the
Marines met with LA Center and addressed internal boundary changes for
R-2509N and R-2509E which allow for arrivals and departures to fly over
the restricted areas allowing better flow control and altitude stratum
for Metroplex procedures. Additionally, the Marine Corps agreed to
limit the maximum altitude for R-2509E to FL400 for only three days of
the exercise otherwise the maximum altitude will be FL220. The FAA has
further addressed the commenters concerns by restricting the airspace
the Marine Corps will utilize within R-2509W to 8,000 feet MSL for the
duration of the exercise and limiting the airspace above R-2509N to
16,000 feet MSL for the duration of the exercise. These changes account
for the differences from the 2016 NPRM that could not be agreed upon
prior to the August 2016 exercise. Those operations were cancelled and
the NPRM withdrawn due to inability to alleviate aeronautical concerns.
The mitigations agreed to by the Marine Corps have adequately addressed
the FAA's earlier concerns.
    In regard to the commenters' recommendation to expand to the east
rather than into the corridor in the west, the Marine Corps conducted
an extensive land use study which included a review of the possible
expansion to the east side of the current restricted area. The planned
exercise requires land and airspace that allows for close air support,
which is the use of aviation in support of ground units, surface fires
and maneuver areas that are oriented for continual progression
throughout the exercise area. The study found that the land to the east
was not a feasible alternative for the conduct of the planned exercise.
Additionally, the use of surface fires is required to integrate with
both fixed and rotary winged aircraft that would require the use of
land the Department of Defense does not possess. Lastly, the Safety
Risk Management Panel conducted by FAA identified the proposal added
minimal impact to the National Airspace System (NAS) compared to daily
operations.

Pilots Need Advanced Notifications of Activation and Awareness of Temp
RAs

    AOPA stated concerns of the lack of awareness for pilots for Temp
RAs as a whole. The infrequent use of Temp RAs in the past 20 years,
lack of discussion within the aeronautical manuals for general aviation
pilots, and lack of temporary special use airspace depicted
electronically (most notably the electronic flight bag), all lead to
the potential of a general aviation pilot to violate the Temp RAs. AOPA
commented that the times of use in the NOTAM for the temporary
restricted areas should be changed to provide 4 hours advance notice
before the areas are activated.
    The FAA agrees and directed the Marine Corps to work within the
current system to insure pilots are notified of the LSE by:
    1. Working with Los Angeles Center to establish ``Pointer NOTAMs''
to enhance coverage and visibility of the activities taking place.
    2. Publish Special Use Airspace NOTAMs no less than six hours prior
to hazardous activity taking place.
    3. Work with the FAA to ensure the Temp RAs will be reflected on
the FAA's SUA Web site: https://sua.faa.gov/sua/siteFrame.app, for
current flight planning information.
    4. Coordinate with AOPA on public outreach matters.
    Additionally, the FAA has started the process to update
aeronautical manuals to define what temporary special use airspace
entails and developing a process to electronically display temporary
special use airspace on the electronic flight bag.

Differences From the NPRM

    In response to comments and the FAA aeronautical study completed by
Los Angeles Center, the FAA changed the internal boundaries of two of
the restricted areas (R-2509N and R-2509W) that were proposed in the
NPRM. Geographic lat./long. coordinates have been adjusted to
accommodate traffic above and around the newly established temporary
restricted areas ensure ample separation from non-participating
traffic. The following restricted area updates are incorporated in this
action.
    Three geographic lat./long. coordinates internal to R-2509N and R-
2509E have been changed and four new points were established.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 to establish new temporary
restricted areas (R-2509E, R-2509W, and R-

2509N) at Twentynine Palms, CA. Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA is also
incorporating the restricted area updates noted in the Differences from
the NPRM section. The FAA is taking this action to accommodate live
fire from pistols, rifles, machine guns, anti-tank weapons, mortars,
artillery, Unmanned Aircraft Systems, fixed wing, and rotary wing
training activities including close air support and live ordnance
delivery. These temporary restricted areas are required to effectively
deconflict Department of Defense and civilian air traffic from hazards
associated with live fire training. The amendments are as follows:
    Temporary R-2509E: The geographic coordinate lat. 34[deg]40'30''
N., long. 116[deg]29'43'' W., in the boundaries description proposed in
the NPRM is replaced with lat. 34[deg]39'24'' N., long. 116[deg]29'19''
W.; Geographic coordinate lat. 34[deg]34'17'' N., long. 116[deg]35'52''
W.; in the boundaries description proposed in the NPRM is replaced with
lat. 34[deg]32'36'' N., long. 116[deg]35'12'' W.
    Temporary R-2509N: The geographic coordinate lat. 34[deg]39'24''
N., long. 116[deg]29'19'' W.; was added to the proposed legal
description. The geographic coordinate lat. 34[deg]34'17'' N., long.
116[deg]35'52'' W.; in the proposed boundaries description, is replaced
with lat. 34[deg]32'36'' N., long. 116[deg]35'12'' W.
    Temporary R2509N/E/W: The ``times of use'' for each legal
description has changed to read: Intermittent by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance during the period from August 7 to August 26, 2017.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraphs 8-2 and 9-2,
Adoption of Other Agencies' National Environmental Policy Act
Documents, and Written Re-evaluations, and 7400.2L, paragraph 32-2-3,
the FAA, after conducting an independent review and evaluation of the
United States Navy's 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and the U.S. Navy's 2017 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (2017 EIS) and Written Re-evaluation for Land Acquisition and
Airspace Establishment to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task
Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center, Twenty-nine Palms, California, has determined that the 2012 EIS
and 2017 SEIS and their supporting documentation, as incorporated by
reference, adequately assess and disclose the environmental impacts of
the Proposed Action including evaluation of the establishment of
airspace for six temporary restricted airspace areas R-2509, 2509E,
2509W, and 2509N (aka R-2509 E/W/N)
    Based on the evaluation for potential environmental impact in the
above-mentioned NEPA documents, the FAA, as the Cooperating Agency,
concluded that adoption of the EIS for Land Acquisition and Airspace
Establishment to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-
Fire and Maneuver Training at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center,
Twenty-nine Palms, California, with incorporation of its supporting
documentation, is authorized in accordance with 40 CFR1506.3, Adoption.
Accordingly, FAA adopts the 2012 EIS and 2017 EIS and takes full
responsibility for the scope and content that address the FAA's
airspace establishment action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.25  California [Amended]

0
2. Sec.  73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2509E Twentynine Palms, CA [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34[deg]39'24'' N., long.
116[deg]29'19'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]36'00'' N., long. 116[deg]28'03''
W.; to lat. 34[deg]31'30'' N., long. 116[deg]26'48'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]30'00'' N., long. 116[deg]26'23'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]21'35'' N.,
long. 116[deg]21'38'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]19'30'' N., long.
116[deg]20'29'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]17'38'' N., long. 116[deg]19'19''
W.; to lat. 34[deg]22'25'' N., long. 116[deg]31'10'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]32'36'' N., long. 116[deg]35'12'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to FL 400.
    Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM 6 hours in advance from
August 7 to August 26, 2017.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control
Center.
    Using agency. Commanding General, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms, CA.

R-2509W Twentynine Palms, CA [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34[deg]35'03'' N., long.
116[deg]36'10'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]22'25'' N., long. 116[deg]31'10''
W.; to lat. 34[deg]27'38'' N., long. 116[deg]40'34'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]27'59'' N., long. 116[deg]42'51'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]29'44'' N.,
long. 116[deg]42'51'' W.; to the point of beginning. Excluding that
airspace within a 3.4-mile radius of point in space at lat.
34[deg]25'32'' N., long. 116[deg]36'52'' W.; surface to 1,500 feet AGL.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 8,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM 6 hours in advance from
August 7 to August 26, 2017.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control
Center.
    Using agency. Commanding General, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms, CA.

R-2509N Twentynine Palms, CA [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34[deg]35'03'' N., long.
116[deg]36'10'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]40'30'' N., long. 116[deg]29'43''
W.; to lat. 34[deg]39'24'' N., long. 116[deg]29'19'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]32'36'' N., long. 116[deg]35'12'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 16,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM 6 hours in advance from
August 7 to August 26, 2017.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control
Center.
    Using agency. Commanding General, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat

Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms, CA.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2017.
Rodger A. Dean, Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2017-13566 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P