[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47765-47771]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15635]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1415; Amdt. No. 91-369]
RIN 2120-AL71

Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Kabul Flight
Information Region (FIR) (OAKX)

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action prohibits certain flight operations in the Kabul
Flight Information Region (FIR) (OAKX) at altitudes below Flight Level
(FL) 320 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons
exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA,
except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a
foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft,
except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The
FAA finds this action necessary to address hazards to persons and
aircraft engaged in such flight operations due to the risk posed by
violent extremist and militant activity and the lack of adequate risk
mitigation capabilities to counter such activity. However, the FAA has
determined that U.S. civil overflights of the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
altitudes at and above FL320 may resume due to diminished risks to U.S.
civil aviation operations at those altitudes. This action also provides
information regarding the approval and exemption processes for this
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), consistent with other
recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 25, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Petrak, Flight Standards Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This action prohibits certain flight operations in the Kabul FIR
(OAKX) at altitudes below FL320 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S.
commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman
certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating
U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of
U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such
aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The FAA finds this action necessary
to address continuing significant hazards to persons and aircraft
engaged in such flight operations due to the risk posed by violent
extremist and militant activity and the lack of adequate risk
mitigation capabilities to counter such activity.
    However, the FAA has determined that U.S. civil overflights of the
Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes at and above FL320 may resume due to
diminished risks to U.S. civil aviation operations at those altitudes.
The FAA previously prohibited civil overflights of the Kabul FIR (OAKX)
at all altitudes, except for the use of jet routes P500-G500, under
Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) KICZ A0029/21. Afghanistan has
promulgated contingency measures based upon internationally recognized
flight procedures and its published contingency plan. Afghanistan
developed this contingency plan in consultation with the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and neighboring States. Consistent
with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, this action
provides information about how to seek relief from this SFAR through
the approval and exemption processes, as applicable. This rule expires
on July 25, 2025.

II. Authority and Good Cause

A. Authority

    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the United
States and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered
civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world.
Sections 106(f) and (g) of title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), subtitle I,
establish the FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation
safety. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1)
provides that the Administrator shall consider, in the public interest,
among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and
security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section
40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise this authority
consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under
international agreements.
    The FAA is promulgating this rule under the authority described in
49 U.S.C. 44701, General Requirements. Under that section, the FAA is
charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum
standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This
regulation is within the scope of the FAA's authority because it
prohibits the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 119, Sec.
91.1619, from conducting flight operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
altitudes below FL320 due to the continuing significant hazards to the
safety of U.S. civil flight operations at those altitudes, as described
in the preamble to this final rule.

B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(B) of title 5, U.S.C., authorizes agencies to
dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency
for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Also, section 553(d)
permits agencies, upon a finding of good cause, to issue rules with an
effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication. In this
instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and the
delayed effective date because they would be impracticable and contrary
to the public interest.
    Providing notice and the opportunity for the public to comment here
would be impracticable. The FAA's flight prohibitions, and any
amendments thereto, need to include appropriate boundaries that reflect
the agency's current understanding of the risk environment for U.S.
civil aviation. This allows the FAA to protect the safety of U.S.
operators' aircraft and the lives of their passengers and crews without
over-restricting or under-restricting U.S. operators' routing options.
However, the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in airspace
managed by other countries with respect to the safety of flight is
fluid in circumstances involving fighting, violent extremist and
militant activity, or periods of heightened tensions, particularly
where weapons capable of targeting or otherwise negatively affecting
U.S. civil aviation are or may be present. This fluidity, and the
potential for rapid changes in the risks to U.S. civil aviation,
significantly limits how far in advance of a new or amended flight
prohibition the FAA can usefully assess the risk environment. The delay
that would be occasioned by providing an opportunity to comment on this
action would significantly increase the risk that the resulting final
action would not accurately reflect the current risks to U.S. civil
aviation associated with the situation and thus would not establish
boundaries for the

flight prohibition commensurate with those risks.
    While the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the
boundaries of the area in which unacceptable risks to the safety of
U.S. civil aviation existed might change due to: evolving military or
political circumstances; violent extremist and militant group activity;
the introduction, removal, or repositioning of more advanced anti-
aircraft weapon systems; or other factors. As a result, if the
situation improved while the FAA sought and responded to public
comments, the rule the FAA finalized might be over-restrictive,
unnecessarily limiting U.S. operators' routing options and potentially
causing them to incur unnecessary additional fuel and operations-
related costs, as well as potentially causing passengers to incur
unnecessarily some costs attributed to their time. Conversely, if the
situation deteriorated while the FAA sought and responded to public
comments, the rule the FAA finalized might be under-restrictive,
allowing U.S. civil aviation to continue operating in areas where
unacceptable risks to their safety had developed. Such an outcome would
endanger the safety of these aircraft, as well as their passengers and
crews, exposing them to unacceptable risks of death, injury, and
property damage that could occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were
shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the Kabul FIR
(OAKX) at altitudes below FL320.
    Alternatively, if the FAA made changes to the area in which U.S.
civil aviation operations would be prohibited between a notice of
proposed rulemaking and a final rule due to changed conditions, the
version of the rule the public commented on would no longer reflect the
FAA's current assessment of the risk environment for U.S. civil
aviation.
    In addition, seeking comment would be contrary to the public
interest because some of the rational basis for the rulemaking is based
upon classified information and controlled unclassified information not
authorized for public release. In order to meaningfully provide comment
on a proposal, the public would need access to the basis for the
agency's decision-making, which FAA cannot provide. Disclosing
classified or controlled unclassified information in order to seek
meaningful comment on the proposal would harm the public interest.
Accordingly, FAA meaningfully seeking comment on the proposal is
contrary to the public interest.
    Therefore, providing notice and the opportunity for comment would
be impracticable as it would hinder the FAA's ability to maintain
appropriate flight prohibitions based on up-to-date risk assessments of
the risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace
managed by other countries and contrary to the public interest as FAA
cannot protect classified and controlled unclassified information and
meaningfully seek public comment.
    For the same reasons discussed above, the potential safety impacts
and the need for prompt action on up-to-date information that is not
public would make delaying the effective date impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. For altitudes at and above FL320 in
the Kabul FIR (OAKX), except for transiting overflights on jet routes
P500-G500, any delay in the effective date of the rule would continue a
prohibition on U.S. civil aviation operations at those altitudes that
the FAA has determined is no longer needed for the safety of U.S. civil
aviation and would thus unnecessarily restrict U.S. operators' routing
options at those altitudes.
    Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and
comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.

III. Background

    The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan and the ongoing threat of
violent extremist organization (VEO) terrorist attacks, coupled with
the coalition force withdrawal from Kabul International Airport (ICAO:
OAKB),\1\ resulted in a substantially degraded safety and security
environment for U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX),
including at Kabul International Airport (OAKB). The withdrawal of
United States and coalition forces resulted in the removal of
associated risk mitigation capabilities previously deployed at Kabul
International Airport (OAKB). In addition, the absence of a functioning
civil aviation authority and air navigation service provider created an
unacceptable level of aviation safety risk for U.S. civil aviation
operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at all altitudes, with the exception
of transiting overflight operations on jet routes P500-G500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Between 2014 and late 2021, Kabul International Airport was
known as Hamid Karzai International Airport (ICAO code: OAKB). The
FAA has used the currently-recognized airport name throughout this
document, although certain references are to historical events that
occurred while the airport was named Hamid Karzai International
Airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Taliban took over the country, the security environment
in Afghanistan remained tenuous and complex and presented an enduring
safety and security risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in the Kabul
FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL260.\2\ Thousands of individuals had
been released from Afghan prisons, and various groups, including VEOs
outside of Taliban control, had seized large quantities of military
equipment. In addition, some VEOs operating in Afghanistan had
demonstrated their capability and willingness to target civil aviation,
as shown by attacks against Kabul International Airport (OAKB) during
late August 2021 and previous instances of surface-to-air fire against
U.S. Government-contracted aircraft over the course of the nearly 20-
year U.S. presence in Afghanistan. On August 26, 2021, the Islamic
State in Iraq and ash-Sham in Khorasan (ISIS-K) conducted a complex
attack against Kabul International Airport (OAKB), killing hundreds,
and, on August 30, 2021, ISIS-K employed indirect fire to target
evacuation operations at the airport. Additionally, ISIS-K conducted an
IED attack on a military security gate at Kabul International Airport
(OAKB) on January 1, 2023, killing several people. Military and civil
aircraft operating at lower altitudes had previously encountered
weapons activity, and the FAA was concerned further incidents might
occur from deliberate or inadvertent targeting that might endanger
flight operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While the background notice the FAA published for NOTAM KICZ
A0029/21 (available at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/us_restrictions/#restrictAF) refers to FL260 in discussing these
threats, that reference did not take into account the high altitude
of some of Afghanistan's terrain. As described later in this
preamble, the use of FL320 in this final rule accounts for risks
associated with the capabilities of weapons systems potentially
available to VEOs and the terrain under established international
air routes in the Kabul FIR (OAKX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA assessed that civil aircraft operating at lower altitudes
might encounter direct or indirect surface-to-air fire threats,
including small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, and low-altitude
anti-aircraft fire. The Taliban, ISIS-K, and other VEOs likely had
access to weapons, including small arms, automatic machine guns, anti-
aircraft artillery (AAA), anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), and
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which posed a risk to aircraft during
low-altitude flight operations, including the arrival and departure
phases of flight, and while on the ground at targeted airports and
airfields.
    A limited threat also existed from the possible use of shoulder-
fired man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), which may be capable
of reaching a maximum altitude of 25,000

feet above ground level (AGL). While the stockpile of MANPADS in
Afghanistan was limited, there were VEOs seeking to acquire this
capability. In the recent past, civil aircraft in Afghanistan had not
been targeted with MANPADS. Military aircraft had been infrequently
targeted with MANPADS since coalition operations in Afghanistan began
in 2001. Although the FAA assessed it was unlikely the Taliban would
target civil aviation in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) now that they had taken
over the country, ISIS-K and some other VEOs operating in Afghanistan
remained outside of Taliban control. The FAA assessed that ISIS-K and
other VEOs had varying capabilities, including potentially having
access to anti-aircraft weapons, including MANPADS.
    In addition to the noted security risks, there was also an
increased safety risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul
FIR (OAKX) at all altitudes. The Taliban takeover resulted in the lack
of a functioning civil aviation authority and air navigation service
provider. This included a lack of air traffic services (ATS)
capabilities necessary to support en-route services for overflight
operations without the implementation of appropriate contingency
measures to enable safe flight operations under those conditions. In
the immediate aftermath of the Taliban takeover, such contingency
measures were not in place.
    Taken together, these circumstances posed an unacceptable risk to
the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
all altitudes, except for transiting overflight operations on jet
routes P500-G500. To address these risks, on August 30, 2021, the FAA
issued NOTAM KICZ A0029/21. This NOTAM prohibited, with certain limited
exceptions, U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
all altitudes by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators;
persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by
the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered
aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered
civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign
air carrier, due to the risk posed by violent extremist and militant
activity, lack of adequate risk mitigation capabilities, and disruption
to air traffic services. The NOTAM allowed U.S. civil aviation
overflights to transit the Kabul FIR (OAKX) on jet routes P500-G500, as
such operations are only in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) very briefly.

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    Following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the ICAO Asia-
Pacific Office made contact with Afghanistan's civil aviation authority
and stood up a contingency coordination team (CCT) composed of
Afghanistan and neighboring air navigation service providers, as well
as International Air Transport Association (IATA) representation.
Afghanistan's civil aviation authority and the CCT worked with
neighboring air navigation service providers to establish a contingency
plan for the safe resumption of civil overflights in the Kabul FIR
(OAKX).
    Subsequently, Afghanistan issued a series of NOTAMs delineating
overflight procedures and established altitude blocks for specific
categories of flight operations across various regions. The overflight
procedures rely upon internationally-recognized traffic information by
aircraft (TIBA) procedures, which pilots use in areas around the world
where air traffic services are very limited or unavailable to maintain
safe separation between aircraft. Consequently, the FAA has determined
that U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) may resume
at altitudes at or above FL320 due to diminished risks to U.S. civil
aviation operations at those altitudes.
    However, the FAA continues to assess the situation in the Kabul FIR
(OAKX) at altitudes below FL320 as being hazardous for U.S. civil
aviation. Following the Taliban takeover of the country and the
withdrawal of coalition forces, the Taliban have struggled to ensure
security throughout Afghanistan. The Taliban face increasing attacks
from ISIS-K, who have also threatened Western and international
interests in the country. During the first half of 2022, ISIS-K
conducted multiple attacks, in part in an effort to frustrate Taliban
attempts to normalize relations with the international community. One
incident of note took place in June 2022, in which ISIS-K attacked a
bus serving Mazar-I-Sharif Airport (ICAO: OAMS), killing two airport
workers.
    The Taliban, ISIS-K, and other VEOs likely had and potentially
maintain access to a variety of weapons, including small arms,
automatic machine guns, AAA, ATGMs, and UAS, posing an ongoing risk to
civil aircraft during low-altitude flight operations, including the
arrival and departure phases of flight, and while on the ground at
targeted airports and airfields. Possible VEO use of shoulder-fired
MANPADS also remains a concern. While the stockpile of MANPADS in
Afghanistan remains limited, VEOs continue to seek to acquire this
capability. Some MANPADS may be capable of reaching a maximum altitude
of 25,000 feet AGL; however, in the context of Afghanistan, the FAA
must also account for the high altitude of some of the country's
terrain. Allowing U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR
(OAKX) only at altitudes at or above FL320 accounts for risks
associated with the capabilities of weapons systems potentially
available to VEOs and the terrain under established international air
routes in the Kabul FIR (OAKX).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in 14 CFR 1.1, ``Flight level means a level of
constant atmospheric pressure related to a reference datum of 29.92
inches of mercury.'' Flight level, in this context, is
differentiated from above-ground-level (AGL), which is altitude
expressed in feet measured above ground level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, VEOs active in Afghanistan have increased cross-border
attacks into Pakistan, drawing Pakistani air strikes against targets in
Afghanistan in response. In mid-April 2022, Pakistani airstrikes in
eastern Afghanistan reportedly killed 47 civilians. Pakistan likely
does not coordinate cross-border tactical military airstrikes with the
Afghan civil aviation authority to de-conflict them with civil air
traffic. Pakistan likely conducts such tactical military operations at
altitudes below FL320.
    Therefore, as a result of the remaining unacceptable risks to U.S.
civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below
FL320 and the likelihood the risk concerns will endure, the FAA
promulgates this final rule to incorporate a prohibition on U.S. civil
aviation operations at those altitudes into the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). The FAA will continue to monitor the situation and
evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen might be
able to operate safely in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below
FL320. Amendments to SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619, could be appropriate
if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend
or rescind SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619, as necessary, prior to its
expiration date.
    The FAA is also publishing the details concerning the approval and
exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble to enable
interested persons to refer to this final rule for all relevant
information about seeking relief from SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619.

V. Approval Process Based on a Request From a Department, Agency, or
Instrumentality of the United States Government

A. Approval Process Based on an Authorization Request From a
Department, Agency, or Instrumentality of the United States Government

    In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or
instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support
their activities in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320. If a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government
determines that it has a critical need to engage any person described
in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619, including a U.S. air
carrier or commercial operator, to transport civilian or military
passengers or cargo or conduct other operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX)
at altitudes below FL320, that department, agency, or instrumentality
may request the FAA to approve persons described in paragraph (a) of
SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619, to conduct such operations.
    The requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or
instrumentality must submit the request for approval to the FAA's
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an
appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality.\4\ The FAA will not accept or consider requests for
approval from anyone other than the requesting U.S. Government
department, agency, or instrumentality. In addition, the senior
official signing the letter requesting FAA approval must be
sufficiently positioned within the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality to demonstrate that the organization's senior
leadership supports the request for approval and is committed to taking
all necessary steps to minimize aviation safety and security risks to
the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to
(1) attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in
the request for approval and (2) ensure that any support from the
requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality
described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is
maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances,
requesting U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities
must submit requests for approval to the FAA no less than 30 calendar
days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality wishes the operator(s) to commence the proposed
operation(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This approval procedure applies to U.S. Government
departments, agencies, or instrumentalities; it does not apply to
the public. The FAA describes this procedure in the interest of
providing transparency with respect to the FAA's process for
interacting with U.S. Government departments, agencies, or
instrumentalities that seek to engage U.S. civil aviation to operate
in the area in which this SFAR would prohibit their operations in
the absence of specific FAA approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requestor must send the request to the Associate Administrator
for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable,
and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it
electronically as to whether the FAA grants the request for approval.
If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the
requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight
Standards Service, at<PHONE_NUMBER> to obtain the appropriate email
address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple
persons described in SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619, or for multiple
flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the
person(s) the requester expects the SFAR to cover on whose behalf the
U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality seeks FAA
approval, and it must describe--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
mission being supported;
     The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will
provide;
     To the extent known, the specific locations in the Kabul
FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320 where the proposed operation(s)
will occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude
of the aircraft while it is operating in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
altitudes below FL320 and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at
which the aircraft will take off and land; and
     The method by which the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise
obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the
operator will integrate this information into all phases of the
proposed operations (i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-
flight, and post-flight phases).
    The request for approval must also include a list of operators with
whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality
requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or
cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s))
for specific flight operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes
below FL320. The requestor may identify additional operators to the FAA
at any time after the FAA issues its approval. Neither the operators
listed in the original request nor any operators the requestor
subsequently seeks to add to the approval may commence operations under
the approval until the FAA issues them an Operations Specification
(OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, for
operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320. The
approval conditions discussed below apply to all operators. Requestors
should send updated lists to the email address they obtained from the
Air Transportation Division by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If an approval request includes classified information or
controlled unclassified information not authorized for public release,
requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Bill Petrak for
instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information
appears in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final
rule.
    FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619,
does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of the responsibility to
comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators
of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their
certificates, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also
comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government
departments, agencies, or instrumentalities that may apply to the
proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations
issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

B. Approval Conditions

    If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety
organization will send an approval letter to the requesting U.S.
Government department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the
FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
    (1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions
that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator
while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational
objectives.
    (2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to
the FAA:
    (a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages,
claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and
expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the
approved operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320;
and
    (b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S.
Government with respect to any and all third-party

damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal
fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to
the approved operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below
FL320.
    (3) Other conditions the FAA may specify, including those the FAA
might impose in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
    The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator
from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance
policy the FAA issues under 49 U.S.C. chapter 443.
    If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue
an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the
original request and any operators the requestor subsequently adds to
the approval, authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s). In
addition, as stated in paragraph (3) of this section V.B., the FAA
notes that it may include additional conditions beyond those contained
in the approval letter in any OpSpec or LOA associated with a
particular operator operating under this approval, as necessary in the
interests of aviation safety. U.S. Government departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities requesting FAA approval on behalf of entities
with which they have a contract or subcontract, grant, or cooperative
agreement should request a copy of the relevant OpSpec or LOA directly
from the entity with which they have any of the foregoing types of
arrangements, if desired.

VI. Information Regarding Petitions for Exemption

    Any operations not conducted under an approval the FAA issues
through the approval process set forth previously may only occur in
accordance with an exemption from SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619. A
petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The FAA will
consider whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those the
approval process described in the previous section contemplates. To
determine whether a petition for exemption from the prohibition this
SFAR establishes fulfills the standards described in 14 CFR 11.81, the
FAA consistently finds necessary the following information:
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
operation;
     The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will
provide;
     The specific locations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
altitudes below FL320 where the proposed operation(s) will occur,
including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the
aircraft while it is operating in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes
below FL320 and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the
aircraft will take off and land;
     The method by which the operator will obtain current
threat information and an explanation of how the operator will
integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations
(i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-
flight phases); and
     The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize
the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed operations, to
support the relief sought, and demonstrate that granting the exemption
would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at
least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found
comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be
helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for
exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.
    The FAA includes, as a condition of each such exemption it issues,
a release and agreement to indemnify, as described previously.
    The FAA recognizes that, with the support of the U.S. Government,
the governments of other countries could plan operations that SFAR No.
119, Sec.  91.1619, affects. While the FAA will not permit these
operations through the approval process, the FAA will consider
exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and in
accordance with the order of preference set forth in paragraph (c) of
SFAR No. 119, Sec.  91.1619.
    If a petition for exemption includes information that is sensitive
for security reasons or proprietary information, requestors may contact
Aviation Safety Inspector Bill Petrak for instructions on submitting it
to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

VII. Severability

    Congress authorized the FAA by statute to promote safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things,
regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce
and national security. 49 U.S.C. 44701. Consistent with that mandate,
the FAA is prohibiting certain persons from conducting flight
operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320 due to the
continuing significant risks to the safety of U.S. civil flight
operations. The purpose of this rule is to operate holistically in
addressing a range of hazards and needs in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
altitudes below FL320. However, the FAA recognizes that certain
provisions focus on unique factors. Therefore, the FAA finds that the
various provisions of this final rule are severable and able to operate
functionally if severed from each other. In the event a court were to
invalidate one or more of this final rule's unique provisions, the
remaining provisions should stand, thus allowing the FAA to continue to
fulfill its congressionally authorized role of promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce.

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a
variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, as amended by Executive Order
14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), direct that each Federal
agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354),
as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as codified in 19 U.S.C.
chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. chapter 25,
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this final
rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant
regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that

Executive order. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not require notice and comment
for this final rule, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not require regulatory
flexibility analyses regarding impacts on small entities. This rule
will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding
the threshold identified previously.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule prohibits U.S. civil flights in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
altitudes below FL320 as a result of the continuing significant risks
to U.S. civil aviation detailed in the preamble of this final rule.
Overflights of the Kabul FIR (OAKX) may be conducted at altitudes at
and above FL320. The FAA acknowledges this flight prohibition may
result in additional costs to some U.S. operators, such as increased
fuel costs and other operational-related costs, as well as some costs
attributed to passenger time. However, the FAA expects the benefits of
this action to exceed the costs because it will result in the avoidance
of risks of fatalities, injuries, and property damage that could result
from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged)
while operating in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an
agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing
impacts on small entities whenever 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law
requires an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking
for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a
final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 after that section or any other law
requires publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The
FAA concludes good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and to not
delay the effective date for this rule. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not
require notice and comment in this situation, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604
similarly do not require regulatory flexibility analyses.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and
determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil
aviation from risks to their operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at
altitudes below FL320, a location outside the United States. Therefore,
the rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $165 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, the FAA's policy is to conform to ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA has determined no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
correspond to this regulation. The FAA finds this action is fully
consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to
ensure the FAA exercises its duties consistent with the obligations of
the United States under international agreements.
    While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air
carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers
from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that
operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition
for U.S. civil aviation. In addition, foreign air carriers and other
foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by
their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA
has issued a flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation.

G. Environmental Analysis

    The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, and DOT Order
5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be
informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations
into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could
have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United
States. The FAA has determined this action is exempt pursuant to
Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114 because it does not have the
potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the
United States.
    The FAA has determined that this action will not have a significant
environmental effect abroad. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-6(c), the
FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for
this determination and has placed it in the docket for this rulemaking.

VIII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

    The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211. The agency
has determined it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the
Executive order and will not be likely to have a

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609 promotes international regulatory cooperation
to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

IX. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access

    Except for classified and controlled unclassified material not
authorized for public release, all documents the FAA considered in
developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical
reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this
rulemaking.
    Those documents may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov
using the docket number listed above. A copy of this rule will be
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded
from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website
at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found on the FAA's
Regulations and Policies website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Interested persons must identify the docket or amendment number of this
rulemaking.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601)
requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or
advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may
contact its local FAA official, or the persons listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

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

The Amendment

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

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49
U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

0
2. Add Sec.  91.1619 to read as follows:

Sec.  91.1619  Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 119--Prohibition
Against Certain Flights in the Kabul Flight Information Region (FIR)
(OAKX).

    (a) Applicability. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
applies to the following persons:
    (1) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators;
    (2) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate
issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-
registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
    (3) All operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when
the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
    (b) Flight prohibition. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section, no person described in paragraph (a) of this
section may conduct flight operations in the Kabul Flight Information
Region (FIR) (OAKX).
    (c) Permitted operations. This section does not prohibit persons
described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight
operations in the Kabul Flight Information Region (FIR) (OAKX) under
the following circumstances:
    (1) Overflights of the Kabul Flight Information Region (FIR) (OAKX)
may be conducted at altitudes at and above Flight Level (FL) 320,
subject to the approval of, and in accordance with the conditions
established by, the appropriate authorities of Afghanistan.
    (2) Flight operations may be conducted in the Kabul Flight
Information Region (FIR) (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320, provided that
such flight operations occur under a contract, grant, or cooperative
agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S.
Government (or under a subcontract between the prime contractor of the
U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality and the person
described in paragraph (a) of this section) with the approval of the
FAA or under an exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA will consider
requests for approval or exemption in a timely manner, with the order
of preference being: first, for those operations in support of U.S.
Government-sponsored activities; second, for those operations in
support of government-sponsored activities of a foreign country with
the support of a U.S. Government department, agency, or
instrumentality; and third, for all other operations.
    (d) Emergency situations. In an emergency that requires immediate
decision and action for the safety of the flight, the pilot in command
of an aircraft may deviate from this section to the extent required by
that emergency. Except for U.S. air carriers and commercial operators
that are subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 119, 121, 125, or
135, each person who deviates from this section must, within 10 days of
the deviation, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays,
submit to the responsible Flight Standards Office a complete report of
the operations of the aircraft involved in the deviation, including a
description of the deviation and the reasons for it.
    (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain in effect until July 25,
2025. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR as necessary.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f) and (g), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5).
Polly Trottenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-15635 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


November 13, 2008

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Changes to the Final Rule Resulting from OMB Comments

FROM:	Kristin Fitzgerald

		Hazardous Waste Identification Division

		Office of Solid Waste

TO:		Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0012

The attached document is a copy of the final rule entitled “Standards
Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K— Alternative
Requirements for Hazardous Waste Determination and Accumulation of
Unwanted Material at Laboratories Owned by Colleges and Universities and
Other Eligible Academic Entities Formally Affiliated with Colleges and
Universities” which shows in red line/strike-out the changes EPA made
to the preamble of the final rule as a result of the review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the period of August
through October 2008.  This copy resulted from a comparison of the
version approved by OMB for publication with the version EPA originally
sent to OMB for review in August 2008.


[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51365-51368]
[DOCID:fr03se08-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0264]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for the
Patchogue Grand Prix, a power boat race on Patchogue Bay off of
Patchogue, New York. The safety zone provides for safety of navigation
for the maritime public viewing and transiting near the power boat
race. This safety zone is necessary to protect the maritime community
from the hazards inherent with a power boat race, namely, a collision
and loss of control of the power boats participating in this event.
Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Long Island Sound.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0264 and are available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and at United
States Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, 120 Woodward Avenue, New
Haven, Connecticut, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call LT Douglas Miller, USCG Sector Long Island Sound Prevention
Department at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submitting Comments

    On June 12, 2008 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone: Patchogue Bay,

Patchogue, NY in the Federal Register (73 FR 114). We received no
letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
    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. This rule is needed to ensure the
safety of the maritime public in the area of the powerboat race.
Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest,
since immediate action is necessary to ensure the public's safety.
Furthermore, the NPRM for this rule was published on June 12, 2008 and
no comments were received from the public. In addition to the NPRM
notification, notification of the safety zone will be made through
marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

Background and Purpose

    OPA Racing LLC of Brick, NJ is sponsoring an annual power boat race
in Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th of August
2008, and for a three day period on a recurring basis each year
thereafter. A safety zone is necessary to protect the maritime
community from the hazards associated with the power boat race. The
safety zone will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m on each day of the
three day event to accommodate the practice sessions and the race.
    Patchogue Bay is located on the south shore of Long Island, New
York. The boat race consists of approximately 40 power boats performing
at high rates of speed in close proximity to each other while operating
over a specified race course in an area of Patchogue Bay, Patchogue,
NY. The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone in order to
provide for the safety of the maritime community and the spectators
viewing the power boats should an accident, such as a collision of the
competing power boats, occur during the race.

Discussion of Rule

    The safety zone will be enforced during the testing of the
powerboats on August 22nd and 23rd, 2008 and during the day of the
race, August 24, 2008. In future years, the safety zone will also be
enforced for the two planned testing days and on the day of the race.
Specific dates will be announced in the Federal Register. On the
specified days, the safety zone will be enforced from 11 a.m. until 5
p.m. during the event and testing sessions. This time period will
provide sufficient opportunity to clear the safety zone area prior to
the testing session and the start of the race, as well as additional
time should testing or the race run longer than the intended period.
Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound will cause notice of the
enforcement of the safety zone to be made by all appropriate means to
ensure the widest publicity among the affected segments of the public
and will include publication in the local notice to mariners, marine
information broadcasts, and facsimile. The safety zone will be
established on the navigable waters of Patchogue Bay as bounded by the
following geographic coordinates: Beginning at a point on land in
Patchogue, NY at approximate position 40[deg]44'56'' N, 073[deg]00'49''
W, then running south to a point in Patchogue Bay at approximate
position 40[deg]44'29'' N, 073[deg]00'49'' W; then running southeast to
a point in Great South Bay at approximate position 40[deg]43'47'' N,
072[deg]59'54'' W; then running east to approximate position
40[deg]43'53'' N, 072[deg]58'46'' W; then to approximate position
40[deg]43'57'' N, 072[deg]57'06'' W, then north to a point on land at
approximate position 40[deg]44'29'' N, 072[deg]57'09'' W. All
coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on
vessel traffic because of this safety zone due to the limited area
covered by this safety zone and the short enforcement period. Any
violation of the safety zone described herein would be punishable by,
among others, civil and criminal penalties, in rem liability against
the offending vessel, and license sanctions.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This regulation may have
some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized
for the following reasons: The zone will only be enforced for a maximum
of eight hours on three specific days, and vessels may transit in all
areas around the zone at all times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in those portions of Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, New York and
marinas located within Patchogue Bay covered by the safety zone that
temporarily may not be able to receive customers. The economic impact
on these small entities is not significant as vessels will be able to
transit around the safety zone and in all other navigable portions of
Patchogue Bay while the safety zone is being enforced and vessels
desiring to transit to marinas located within the vicinity of the
safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port to
enter and transit the zone. No comments were received regarding the
economic impact on small entities and the original assessment of impact
on small entities was not changed in this rulemaking.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entites in understanding this rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 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 concluded,
under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. A final environmental analysis checklist
and a final categorical exclusion determination are available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
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. 1226 and 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191; 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.  165.158 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.158  Safety Zone: Patchogue Grand Prix, Patchogue Bay,
Patchogue, NY.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of Patchogue Bay, NY bounded by an area beginning at a point on
land in Patchogue, NY at approximate position 40[deg]44'56'' N,
073[deg]00'49'' W; then running south to a point in Patchogue Bay at
approximate position 40[deg]44'29'' N, 073[deg]00'49'' W; then running
south east to a point in Great South Bay at approximate position
40[deg]43'47'' N, 072[deg]59'54'' W; then running east to approximate
position 40[deg]43'53'' N, 072[deg]58'46'' W; then to approximate
position 40[deg]43'57'' N, 072[deg]57'06'' W; then north to a point on
land at approximate position 40[deg]44'29'' N, 072[deg]57'09'' W. All
coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
Designated on-scene patrol personnel, means any commissioned, warrant
and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard operating Coast Guard
vessels who has been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of
the Port Long Island Sound.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
Sec.  165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound.
    (3) All persons and vessels must comply with the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing

light or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as
directed.
    (5) Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the zone on
VHF-16 or via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 11 a.m. to
5 p.m. on August 22, 23, and 24, 2008 and each year thereafter at dates
and times specified in a Federal Register notice.

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
Daniel A. Ronan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. E8-20360 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 20671-20672]
[DOCID:fr21ap06-59]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0121; FRL-8067-3]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for an Exemption from
the Requirement of Regulations for Residues of Ammonium Formate in or
on All Food Commodities When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide
Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of regulations for residues of ammonium formate in or on
all food commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0121 and pesticide petition number (PP)
6E7028, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday,
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The
Docket telephone number and hours of operation will remain the same
after the move.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0121. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the 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 docket
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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at
the location identified under ``Delivery'' and ``Important Note.'' The
hours of operation for this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Bipin Gandhi, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner is available on EPA's
Electronic Docket at http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this

information on the home page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick
Search'' and type the OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located
the docket, clicking on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all
documents in the docket for the pesticide including the petition
summary.

New Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 6E7028. Phyton Corporation, 7449 Cahill Road, Edina, MN 55439,
proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of ammonium formate (CAS Reg. No. 540-69-2) in or on all
food commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products. Because this petition is a request for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical
method is required.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 11, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-6011 Filed 4-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46220-46221]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025 (Notice No. 2020-05)]

Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control
number pertaining to hazardous materials transportation. This notice
follows the publication of a PHMSA final rule titled ``Hazardous
Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail'' [HM-264, 85 FR 44994]
authorizing the transportation of liquefied natural gas by rail. PHMSA
intends to request a renewal with change of currently approved OMB
control number 2137-0612, ``Hazardous Materials Security Plans.''

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
September 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2018-0025 (Notice No. 2020-05) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket Number (PHMSA-2018-0025) for this notice at the beginning of the
comment. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four
methods. All comments received will be posted without change to the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) and will include any personal
information you provide.
    Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed
to Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller, Standards and Rulemaking Division,
(202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Confidential Business Info: Confidential Business Information (CBI)
is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as ``CBI.'' Please mark each page of your
submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller, Standards and Rulemaking
Division and addressed to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary that PHMSA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller,
Standards and Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 24, 2020, PHMSA, in coordination
with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), published a final rule
\1\ titled ``Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail'' [HM-
264, 85 FR 44994], to allow for the bulk transport of ``Methane,
refrigerated liquid,'' commonly known as liquefied natural gas (LNG),
in rail tank cars. In this final rule, PHMSA amended the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) to require any rail
carrier transporting a tank car quantity of UN1972 (Methane,
refrigerated liquid (cryogenic liquid) or Natural gas, refrigerated
liquid (cryogenic liquid)) to comply with the additional safety and
security planning requirements for transportation by rail. PHMSA
currently accounts for the burden associated with safety and security
planning requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control
Number 2137-0612, ``Hazardous Materials Security Plans.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-07-24/pdf/2020-13604.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB regulations require PHMSA to provide interested members of the
public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. 5 CFR 1320.8(d). Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 96-511), no person is required
to respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by
OMB and displays a valid OMB control number. As the HM-264 final rule
contains revisions that were not proposed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) \2\ [October 24, 2019; 84 FR 56964], PHMSA is
publishing this 60-day notice to provide an opportunity for public
comment on the estimated increase in burden. The estimated increase in
burden hours is reflected in ``Section VI.G. Paperwork Reduction Act,''
of the preamble to the final rule, with a minor adjustment due to a
rounding error. PHMSA will subsequently publish a 30-day notice in
response to any comments received to this notice, along with a
submission to OMB reflecting this revised annual burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-24/pdf/2019-22949.pdf.

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

    PHMSA requests comments on the following increase in OMB Control
Number 2137-0612:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Increase in     increase in                     Increase in                     Increase in
                                                           total number    total number    Burden hours    total burden     Salary cost    total salary
                                                           of railroads      of routes       per route         hours         per hour          cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Railroads.......................................               0               2              80             160          $60.83          $9,733
Class II Railroads......................................               0               1              80              80           60.83           4,866
Class III Railroads.....................................               0               1              40              40           60.83           2,433
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Increase in Primary Route Analysis............  ..............               4  ..............             280  ..............          17,032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Increase in     Increase in                     Increase in                     Increase in
                                                           total number    total number    Burden hours    total burden     Salary cost    total salary
                                                           of railroads      of routes       per route         hours         per hour          cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Railroads.......................................               0               2             120             240          $60.83         $14,599
Class II Railroads......................................               0               1             120             120           60.83           7,300
Class III Railroads.....................................               0               1              40              40           60.83           2,433
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Increase in Alternate Route Analysis..........  ..............               4  ..............             400  ..............          24,332
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual Increase in Number of Respondents: 0.
    Annual Increase in Number of Responses: 8.
    Annual Increase in Burden Hours: 680.
    Annual Increase in Salary Costs: $41,364.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 27, 2020, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William A. Quade,
Deputy Associate Administrator of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-16556 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P