[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2818-2819]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00569]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[[Docket No. FAA-2022-1316; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-32]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Multiple North Dakota Towns

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Carrington, ND;
Cooperstown, ND; Harvey, ND; Rolla, ND; and Walhalla, ND. This action
is due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the decommissioning of
the Devils Lake very high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional range (VOR)
as part of the VOR Minimal Operational Network (MON) Program. The name
of Rolla Municipal Airport/Leonard Krech Field, Rolla, ND, is also
being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 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
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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Carrington Municipal Airport, Carrington, ND;
Cooperstown Municipal Airport, Cooperstown, ND; Harvey Municipal
Airport, Harvey, ND; Rolla Municipal Airport/Leonard Krech Field,
Rolla, ND; and Walhalla Municipal Airport, Walhalla, ND, to support
instrument flight rule operations at these airports.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 66634; November 4, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-1316
to amend the Class E airspace at Carrington, ND; Cooperstown, ND;
Harvey, ND; Rolla, ND; and Walhalla, ND. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:

    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Carrington Municipal Airport, Carrington, ND, by
removing the Devils Lake VOR/DME and the airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface from the airspace legal description as it
is redundant with the airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface over the State of North Dakota;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.3-mile (decreased from a 6.4-mile) radius of
Cooperstown Municipal Airport, Cooperstown, ND; and removes the Devils
Lake VOR/DME, Hector International Airport, Grand Forks AFB, Jamestown
VOR/DME, Barnes City Municipal Airport, and the airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface from the airspace legal
description as it is redundant with the airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface over the State of North Dakota;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Harvey Municipal Airport, Harvey, ND, by removing Minot
AFB, Bismarck VOR/DME, Devils Lake VOR/DME, and the airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface from the airspace legal
description as it is redundant with the airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface over the State of North Dakota;
    Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7.3-mile) radius of
Rolla Municipal Airport/Leonard Krech Field, Rolla, ND; removes the
exclusion north of lat. 49[deg]00'00''N. as it is no longer required;
removes the Devils Lake VOR/DME and the airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface from the airspace legal description as it
is redundant with the airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface over the State of North Dakota; and updates the name of the
airport (previously Rolla Municipal Airport) to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Walhalla Municipal Airport, Walhalla, ND, by
removing the Devils Lake VOR/DME and the airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface from the airspace legal description as it
is redundant with the airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface over the State of North Dakota.
    This action is due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Devils Lake VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 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

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 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.

71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Carrington, ND [Amended]

Carrington Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 47[deg]27'04'' N, long. 99[deg]09'05'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Carrington Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Cooperstown, ND [Amended]

Cooperstown Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 47[deg]25'22'' N, long. 98[deg]06'21'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Cooperstown Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Harvey, ND [Amended]

Harvey Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 47[deg]47'28'' N, long 99[deg]55'54'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Harvey Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Rolla, ND [Amended]

Rolla Municipal Airport/Leonard Krech Field, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]53'04'' N, long. 99[deg]37'15'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Rolla Municipal Airport/Leonard Krech
Field.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Walhalla, ND [Amended]

Walhalla Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]56'26'' N, long. 97[deg]54'10'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Walhalla Municipal Airport,
excluding that airspace north of lat. 49[deg]00'00'' N.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 10, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-00569 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 21650]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-811-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule S-2 Interim ASA
Tracker to be effective 3/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220405-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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: April 6, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07764 Filed 4-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


June 30, 2004 Ms. Kay Prince US Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 61 Forsyth St. S. W. Atlanta, GA 30303 8960 Dear Ms. Prince:

Please find enclosed the Unifour Area's six month progress report due June 30, 2004 as required by the Early Action Compact. The report has been e mailed and a " hard copy" mailed. A few items were only available in paper form, and those items you will find with the " hard copy".

We look forward to continuing work with the US EPA and the NC Division of Air Quality in efforts to help reduce pollution in the air that we breathe. Thank you for all the support you provide us in our efforts to make these goals successful. If you have any questions, or if we can provide any additional information please feel free to contact John Tippett at 828 322 9191 ext. 237.

Sincerely,

Judy G. McKee WPCOG Air Quality Planner Cc: Richard Schutt, USEPA Sheila Holman, NCDAQ Unifour Air Quality Committee


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48748-48750]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21057]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0849]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; The Gut, South Bristol, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
for the navigable waters within a 50 yard radius from the center point
of The Gut Bridge in South Bristol, ME between Rutherford Island and
Bristol Neck. The safety zone is necessary to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created
during bedrock removal operations. When enforced, this proposed rule
would prohibit entry of vessels or persons into the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Northern New England or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0849 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Matthew Odom, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Northern New England,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MEDOT Maine Department of Transportation
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 08, 2014, the Coast Guard published a temporary final
rule titled, ``Regulated Navigation Area; South Bristol Gut Bridge
Replacement, South Bristol, ME.'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 60745)
to enforce a regulated navigation area during bridge replacement
operations. This regulated navigation area allowed the Coast Guard to
enforce speed and wake restrictions and prohibit all vessel traffic
through the regulated navigation area during bridge replacement
operations. This rule was effective until April 30, 2017. No comments
were received during the public comment period of this rule making.
    On August 21, 2018, the Maine Department of Transportation (MEDOT)
notified the Coast Guard that it will be removing bedrock in the areas
between Rutherford Island and Bristol Neck underneath The Gut Bridge.
The removal operations include removing bedrock from between the bridge
abutments and areas near the navigation channel both upstream and
downstream

of The Gut Bridge. To remove the bedrock workers will need to utilize
the waterway underneath the bridge span and prohibit people and vessels
from entering the safety zone at various times. Removal operations are
expected to take place between November 2018 and March 2019. However,
we only anticipate a continuous 35 day full closure of the waterway.
The Captain of the Port (COTP) Northern New England has determined that
the potential hazards associated with the removal operations will be a
safety concern for anyone transiting within a 50-yard radius of the
center point of The Gut Bridge.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and personnel from potential hazards associated with the removal of
bedrock within a 50-yard radius of the center point of The Gut Bridge
during scheduled bedrock removal operations. The Coast Guard proposes
this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port (COTP) Northern New England proposes to
establish a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on November 8, 2018 to 11:59 on
March 31, 2019. While the safety zone would be effective throughout
this period, it would only be enforced during periods of active bedrock
removal operations. The safety zone would include all navigable waters
from surface to bottom within a 50 yard radius from the center point of
The Gut Bridge between Rutherford Island and Bristol Neck in South
Bristol, ME. During times of enforcement, no vessel or person would be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.
    The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this
safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not
limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to
Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-
FM) in advance of any enforcement.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and selective enforcement of the safety zone. The
safety zone will impact only a small designated portion on The Gut
waterway for 143 days. This waterway is typically transited by small
recreational craft on an infrequent basis after Labor Day Weekend and
prior to Memorial Day Weekend. Vessel traffic would be able to safely
transit around this safety zone with a slight delay (approximately 20-
60 minutes) by transiting around Rutherford Island to reach any
destination on the other side of The Gut. Additionally, the safety zone
will only be enforced during active bedrock removal operations
necessitating closure of the waterway or during an emergency. Moreover,
the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone. The Coast
Guard will notify the public of enforcement of this rule via
appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM)

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. 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
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone that would
prohibit entry within a 50-yard radius of the center point of a bridge.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is 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 proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0849 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0849  Safety Zone[s]; Safety Zone; The Gut, South
Bristol, ME.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
The Gut, a waterway between Rutherford Island and Bristol Neck in South
Bristol, ME, from surface to bottom, encompassed by a 50-yard radius
from the center point of The Gut Bridge at position 43[deg]51.720' N,
069[deg]33.480' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, petty officer, or designated Patrol Commander of the U.S.
Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector
Northern New England (COTP), to act on his or her behalf. The
designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be
on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or
loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be
present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
    Official patrol vessels means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved
by the COTP to enforce this section.
    (c) Enforcement period. This rule will be effective from 12:01 a.m.
on November 8, 2018 through 11:59 p.m. on March 31, 2019, but will only
be enforced during active bedrock removal operations or other instances
which may cause a hazard to navigation, or when deemed necessary by the
Captain of the Port (COTP), Northern New England.
    (d) Regulations. When this safety zone is enforced, the following
regulations, along with those contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply:
    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone
described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the
COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To obtain permission required by this regulation, individuals
may reach the COTP or the COTP's designated representative via Channel
16 (VHF-FM) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Sector Northern New England Command
Center).
    (3) During periods of enforcement, any person or vessel permitted
to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (e) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.
    (f) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Northern New England will give
notice through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners for the purpose of enforcement of temporary safety zone. Coast
Guard Sector Northern New England will also notify the public to the
greatest extent possible of any period in which the Coast Guard will
suspend enforcement of this safety zone.

    Dated: September 21, 2018.
B.J. LeFebvre,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2018-21057 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71048-71056]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29500]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0028]

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of guidance.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice provides guidelines that describe the application
process for grants and the criteria for awarding grants in the fiscal
year (FY) 2011 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program year. It
explains the differences, if any, between these guidelines and those
recommended by representatives of the Nation's fire service leadership
during the annual Criteria Development meeting, which was held October
6-7, 2010. The application period for the FY 2011 AFG Program year was
open from August 15, 2011, to September 23, 2011, and was announced on
http://www.grants.gov. Approximately 16,491 applications for AFG
funding were submitted electronically, using the application submission
form and process available at https://portal.fema.gov. Before the
application period, the FY 2011 AFG Guidance and Application Kit was
published on the AFG Web site (http://www.fema.gov/firegrants).
Additional information to assist applicants also was provided on the
AFG Web site, including an applicant tutorial, a Get Ready Guide, and a
Narrative Assistance Guide. The AFG Program makes grants directly to
fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services (EMS)
organizations for the purpose of enhancing the abilities of first
responders to protect the health and safety of the public as well as
that of first-responder personnel facing fire and fire-related hazards.
In addition, the authorizing statute requires that a minimum of 5
percent of appropriated funds be expended for fire prevention and
safety grants, which are also made directly to local fire departments
and to local, regional, State, or national entities recognized for
their expertise in the fields of fire prevention and firefighter safety
research and development.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a.

DATES: Grant applications for the Assistance to Firefighters Grants
were accepted electronically at https://portal.fema.gov, August 15,
2011 to September 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, Stop 3620, DHS/
FEMA, 800 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20472-3620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Patterson, Chief, Assistance
to Firefighters Grants Branch, 1-(866) 274-0960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the AFG Program is to provide
grants directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations
to enhance their ability to protect the health and safety of the
public, as well as that of first-responder personnel, with respect to
fire and fire-related hazards. The governing statute requires that each
year DHS publish in the Federal Register the guidelines that describe
the application process and the criteria for grant awards.
    Approximately 16,491 applications for AFG funding were submitted
electronically, using the application submission form and process
available at https://portal.fema.gov. Specific information about the
submission of grant applications can be found in the FY 2011 Assistance
to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Guidance and Application Kit, which is
available for download at http://www.fema.gov/firegrants and at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2011-0028.
    Paper applications were accepted but discouraged due to the
inherent delays with processing them and because they lack the
applicant ``help'' features that are built into the electronic
application. Applicants were able to obtain a copy of the of the
official paper application form by calling 1-(866) 274-0960. Paper
applications were sent via regular mail only; no application forms were
sent via overnight delivery, fax, or email. Applicants were allowed to
submit only the FY 2011 AFG application form that was mailed to them by
the AFG. No other version of the application was accepted. Applicants
were instructed not to use any paper application that they did not
receive directly from the AFG and were instructed not to use a previous
year's application. Paper applications had to be postmarked no

later than September 23, 2011, and mailed to the following address:

Cabezon Group, ATTN: AFG Grant Program, 11821 Parklawn Drive, Suite
230, Rockville, MD 20852.
    The AFG informed applicants that it would not be responsible for
applications sent to any other address and that late, incomplete, or
faxed applications would NOT be accepted.

Appropriations

    Congress appropriated $404,190,000 for the FY 2011 AFG. From this
amount, $380,747,000 will be made available for AFG awards. Funds
appropriated for the FY 2011 AFG (pursuant to Public law 112-10) are
available for obligation and award until September 30, 2012. FEMA
received approximately 16,491 applications for assistance and
anticipates that it will award approximately 4,000 grants with the
grant funding available.
    Congress directed DHS to administer the appropriations:
     Up to 5.8 percent of funds may be used for program
administration.
     Up to 2 percent of funds may be used for awards to
nonaffiliated EMS organizations.
     No more than 25 percent of funds may be used for vehicle
awards. Of that amount, up to 15 percent may be used for fire-based EMS
emergency transport vehicles (with a cap of $120,000 per unit).
     No less than 3.5 percent of funds must be awarded for
equipment and training grants for both fire-based EMS and nonaffiliated
EMS.
     No less than 5 percent of funds must be made available to
make grants supporting eligible fire prevention activities (Fire
Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grants) and research and development
activities that improve firefighter safety. However, due to the
importance of mitigation activities, the FY 2011 FP&S will be allocated
$35 million for grants. The FP&S Grants are not part of this AFG
solicitation. The FP&S Grant application period is expected to commence
in the fall of 2011.

Background of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program

    DHS awards the grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that
best address the AFG Program's priorities and provide the most
compelling justification. Applications that best address the Program's
priorities will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire service
personnel.

Award Criteria

    The panel will review the application and evaluate it using the
following criteria:
     Proposed project and the project budget.
     Financial need for the project.
     Benefits that would result from the project.
     Extent to which the grant would enhance daily operations.
     How the grant will positively impact the regional ability
to protect life and property.
    The AFG Program for FY 2011 generally mirrors the AFG Program of
previous years. DHS again will have a separate application period
devoted solely to FP&S, which will is projected to occur in the fall of
2011. All applications for grants will be prepared and submitted
through the AFG e-Grants system (https://portal.fema.gov).

Statutory Limits to Funding

    Congress has enacted statutory limits to the amount of funding that
a grantee may receive from the AFG Program in any single fiscal year
(15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(10)). These limits are based on the population
served. Awards will be limited based on the size of the population
protected by the applicant, as indicated below.
     An applicant that serves a jurisdiction with 500,000
people or less may not receive grant funding in excess of $1 million
for any fiscal year.
     A grantee that serves a jurisdiction with more than
500,000 but not more than 1 million people may not receive grants in
excess of $1,750,000 in any fiscal year.
     A grantee that serves a jurisdiction with more than 1
million people may not receive grants in excess of $2,750,000 in any
fiscal year.
    DHS may waive these established limits to any grantee serving a
jurisdiction of 1 million people or less if the agency determines that
an extraordinary need for assistance warrants the waiver. No grantee,
under any circumstance, may receive ``more than the lesser of
$2,750,000 or one-half of 1 percent of the funds appropriated under
this section for a single fiscal year.'' (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(10)(B)).

Cost Sharing

    Grantees must share in the costs of the projects funded under this
grant program (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(6)). Fire departments and
nonaffiliated EMS organizations that serve populations of less than
20,000 must match the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal
funds equal to 5 percent of the total project cost. Those fire
departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations serving areas with a
population between 20,000 and 50,000, inclusive, must match the Federal
grant funds with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to 10 percent of
the total project cost, and those that serve populations of more than
50,000 must match the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal
funds equal to 20 percent of the total project costs. Regional project
cost share will be based on the total population and demographics of
the entire region. All non-Federal funds must be in cash, i.e., in-kind
contributions are not acceptable as matching funds. No waivers of this
requirement will be granted except for applicants located in Insular
Areas as provided for in 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Statutory Requirements for Funding Distribution

    The authorizing statute imposes additional requirements on ensuring
a distribution of grant funds among career, volunteer, and combination
(volunteer and career personnel) fire departments, and among urban,
suburban, and rural communities. More specifically with respect to
department types, DHS must ensure that all-volunteer or combination
fire departments receive a portion of the total grant funding that is
not less than the proportion of the United States population that those
departments protect (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(11)). There is no corresponding
minimum for career departments. Therefore, subject to the other
statutory limitations on the ability of DHS to award funds, DHS will
ensure that, for the 2011 program year, no less than 33.5 percent of
the funding available for grants will be awarded to combination
departments, and no less than 19.5 percent will be awarded to all-
volunteer departments. These figures were obtained from the National
Fire Protection Association report entitled U.S. Fire Department
Profile Through 2009, issued October 2010. If, and only if, other
statutory limitations inhibit the ability of DHS to ensure this
distribution of funding, DHS will ensure that the aggregate combined
total percentage of funding provided to both combination and volunteer
departments is no less than 53 percent.
    DHS generally makes funding decisions using rank order resulting
from the panel evaluation. However, DHS may deviate from rank order and
make funding decisions based on the type of department (career,
combination, or volunteer) and/or the size and character of the
community the

applicant serves (urban, suburban, or rural) to the extent it is
required to satisfy statutory provisions.

Central Contractor Registration (CCR)

    Since October 1, 2003, it has been federally mandated that any
organization wishing to do business with the Federal government under a
FAR-based contract must be registered in CCR before being awarded a
contract. This includes applicants and grantees for the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program. To submit a new registration. go to: http://www.bpn.gov/ccr/grantees.aspx.

Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program

    In addition to the grants available to fire departments in FY 2011
through the competitive grant program, DHS must set aside no less than
5 percent ($20,250,000) of AFG Program funds for the FP&S Grant
Program. However, due to the importance of mitigation activities, DHS
will allocate $35 million for the FY 2011 FP&S Grant Program. The FP&S
funds will be available to make grants to, or enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements with, national, State, local, or community
organizations or agencies, including fire departments.
    In accordance with the statutory requirement to fund fire
prevention activities, the FP&S Program offers grants to support
activities in two categories: (1) Activities designed to reach high-
risk target groups and mitigate incidences of death and injuries caused
by fire and fire-related hazards (``Fire Prevention and Safety
Activity''); and (2) research and development activities aimed at
improving firefighter safety (``Firefighter Safety Research and
Development Activity''). DHS will issue an announcement regarding
pertinent details of the FY 2011 FP&S Grant portion of the AFG Program
prior to the start of the application period, which is tentatively
scheduled for fall of 2011.

Application Process

    Prior to the start of the FY 2011 AFG application period, DHS
conducted applicant workshops across the country to inform potential
applicants about the AFG Program. In addition, DHS provided applicants
with an online web-based tutorial (available at the AFG Web site:
www.fema.gov/firegrants) and other online information to help them
prepare quality grant applications. The AFG also staffed a Help Desk
throughout the application period. The AFG Help Desk staff members
provided assistance to applicants with navigation through the automated
application as well as assistance with any questions they had.
Applicants could reach the AFG Help Desk through a toll-free telephone
number (1-(866) 274-0960) or electronic mail (firegrants@dhs.gov).
    Applicants were advised to access the application electronically at
https://portal.fema.gov. New applicants had to register and establish a
username and password for secure access to their application.
Applicants that applied to any previous AFG funding opportunities had
to use their previously established usernames and passwords. In
completing the application, applicants provided relevant information on
their organization's characteristics, call volume, and existing
capabilities. Applicants were asked to answer questions about their
grant request that reflected the AFG funding priorities, which are
described below. In addition, each applicant had to complete four
separate narratives for each Request Details activity. These narratives
addressed statutory competitive factors: project description and
budget, cost benefit, effect on the organization, and additional
information. The electronic application process permitted the applicant
to enter and save the application. The system did not permit the
submission of incomplete applications. Except for the narrative
textboxes, the application used a ``point-and-click'' selection
process, or required the entry of information (e.g., name and address,
call volume numbers, etc.).
    Applicants were encouraged to read the AFG Guidance and Application
Kit for more details.

Application Review Process

    DHS first will evaluate all applications received through an
automated preliminary screening process to determine which applications
best address the AFG Program's announced funding priorities. The
automated preliminary screening will evaluate and score the applicants'
answers to the activity-specific questions. Applications containing
multiple activities will be given prorated scores based on the amount
of funding requested for each activity. The applications that best meet
the AFG Program priorities as determined by the preliminary screening
will be deemed to be in the ``competitive range.'' Once the competitive
range is established, DHS will review the list of applicants that were
not included in the competitive range to determine if any are
responsible for protecting DHS-specified critical infrastructure or key
resources. All applications will be evaluated against the award
criteria described in this document.
    All applications deemed to be in the competitive range will be
subjected to a second level of review by a technical evaluation panel
(TEP) made up of individuals from the fire service, including, but not
limited to, firefighters, fire marshals, and fire training instructors.
The panelists, or peer reviewers, will assess each application's merits
with respect to the clarity and detail used to describe the project and
its budget, the project's purported benefits relative to its cost (cost
benefit), the extent to which the project would enhance daily
operations, and additional information provided by the applicant. Using
the evaluation criteria described below, the panelists will evaluate
and score independently each application referred for peer review and
then discuss the merits and shortcomings of each application in an
effort to reconcile any major discrepancies. However, a consensus among
reviewers on the scores is not required.
    Applications will receive two reviews that comprise their total
application score. The first review will evaluate the application to
see if its requests meet the funding priorities. This will count for 50
percent of the application's total score and will determine whether or
not the application goes to a peer review panel for further evaluation.
The second review is the peer review panel score, which is 50 percent
of the application's total score. Applications then will be ranked
according to the total application scores, and DHS will consider the
highest-scoring applications for awards.
    Applications that involve interoperable communications projects
will undergo a separate review by the responsible State Administrative
Agency to assure that the communications project is consistent with the
Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP). If the State
determines that the project is inconsistent with the SCIP, the project
will not be funded.
    After the completion of the TEP reviews, DHS will select a
sufficient number of awardees from this application period to obligate
all of the available grant funding. DHS will announce the awards over
several months and will notify unsuccessful applicants as soon as
feasible. DHS will not make the awards in any specified order, i.e.,
awards will not be made by State, program, etc.

Environmental and Historic Preservation Review

    Applications seeking assistance to modify facilities or to install
equipment requiring renovations may undergo additional screening.
Modification to facility projects (including renovations associated
with equipment installations) will be subject to all applicable Federal
requirements for environmental and historic preservation (EHP). No
project that involves a modification to facility can proceed--except
for project planning--without prior formal written approval from DHS
and the completion of any required EHP review. If an award includes a
modification to a facility, the applicant will be responsible for
contacting the AFG staff to receive instructions on how to proceed.
Noncompliance with these provisions may jeopardize an applicant's award
and subsequent funding.

Criteria Development Process

    Each year, DHS convenes a panel of fire service professionals to
develop the funding priorities and other implementation criteria for
AFG. The Criteria Development Panel is comprised of representatives
from nine major fire service organizations, who are charged with making
recommendations to FEMA regarding the creation of new, and/or
modification of, previously funded priorities as well as developing
criteria for awarding grants. The nine major fire service organizations
represented on the panel are:
     Congressional Fire Services Institute (CFSI)
     International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI)
     International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
     International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
     International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI)
     National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM)
     National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
     National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC)
     North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD)
    The FY 2011 criteria development panel meeting occurred October 6-
7, 2010. The content of the FY 2011 AFG Guidance and Application Kit
reflects the implementation of the Criteria Development Panel's
recommendations with respect to the priorities, direction, and criteria
for awards. All of the funding priorities for the FY 2011 AFG are
designed to address the following:
     First responder safety
     Enhancement of national capabilities
     Risk
     Interoperability

Changes for FY 2011

     FY 2011 AFG Guidance. The FY 2011 AFG Guidance and
Application Kit is condensed into two sections. Section I contains
application and review information, and Section II contains award
administration information.
     Online Tools for Applicants. A ``Get Ready Guide'' and a
``Quick Reference Guide'' are online reference documents designed to
help applicants prepare for completing the AFG application.
     Application Scoring. In a change from previous years,
applications will receive two reviews that comprise their total
application score. The first review will measure the application
request to see if it meets the funding priorities. This will count for
50 percent of the total score and will measure whether or not the
application goes to panel review. The second review is the panel review
score, which is 50 percent of the application's total score.
Applications then will be ranked according to the total application
scores, and DHS will consider the highest-scoring applications for
awards.
     Regional Projects. Personal protective equipment is now an
eligible expense.
     Operations and Safety.
    (1) Boats (20 feet and under). Eligible for request in the
Equipment activity.
    (2) Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA). SCBAs that are
manufactured before the NFPA 2002 standard are a high priority for
funding.
    (3) Wellness and Fitness Programs. Firefighter and EMS wellness and
fitness programs will be required to offer a fourth component--a
behavioral health program--in addition to periodic health screenings,
entry physical exams, and immunizations.
    (4) Flashover Simulators. No longer eligible for funding.
     Vehicle Acquisition
    (1) In fire-based EMS, ambulances will be the equivalent to a
pumper as a high priority item.
    (2) Applicants may request more than one vehicle per station.
    (3) Applicants that do not have drivers and operators trained to
current NFPA 1002 or equivalent standards, and do not plan to have a
training program in place by the time the requested vehicle is
delivered, will not be eligible to receive a vehicle grant.
    (4) Extended warranties and service agreements are eligible
expenses.

Changes to Criteria Development Panel Recommendations

    DHS must explain any differences between the published guidelines
and the recommendations made by the criteria development panel and
publish this information in the Federal Register prior to making any
grants under the Program (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(14)). DHS accepts and is
implementing all of the Criteria Development Panel's recommendations,
with the exception of the two that we recommended be revised (discussed
below).
    (1) Panel members recommended adding value at the prescore level
for applications that answer a question indicating that they will buy
equipment or vehicles made in the U.S. This recommendation requires
inserting new questions into the AFG application and asking applicants
to indicate whether it is their intention to purchase equipment or
vehicles made in the U.S. When the preliminary assessment is performed,
applications that contain affirmative answers to those questions will
receive a higher score than those that do not.
    DHS acknowledges this Panel recommendation but was unable to
implement this scoring change with the FY 2011 AFG application. DHS
will work with the Criteria Development Panel and internal DHS policies
to determine the feasibility of this recommendation in future grant
programs.
    (2) Panel members recommended that the formal driver training
programs required of AFG vehicle awardees (fire and EMS) include the
minimum U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (649-F) medical
examination report or equivalent.
    DHS acknowledges this recommendation but was concerned that small,
rural fire departments may be disadvantaged by this requirement because
they may not have easy access to medical professionals who can provide
examinations that meet the required standard to all of the individuals
in the driver training program. DHS will work with the Criteria
Development Panel to achieve compliance with the USDOT standard but
also allow some flexibility for grantees having difficulty meeting that
standard.

Application Review Considerations

    The governing statute requires that each year DHS publish in the
Federal Register a description of the grant application process and the
criteria for grant awards. This information is provided below.

Fire Department Priorities

    Specific rating criteria for each of the eligible programs and
activities are discussed below. The funding priorities described in
this Notice have been recommended by a panel of representatives from
the Nation's fire service leadership and have been accepted by DHS for
the purposes of implementing the AFG. These rating criteria provide an
understanding of the Grant Program's priorities and the expected cost-
effectiveness of any proposed project(s). The activities listed below
are in no particular order of priority. Within each activity, DHS will
consider the population served by the applicant, with applicants that
serve larger populations afforded a higher consideration than
applicants that serve smaller populations. DHS further explained the
Program priorities in the Guidance and Application Kit that was
published separately.
    (1) Fire Operations and Firefighter Safety Program.
    (i) Firefighter Training Activities. The Criteria Development Panel
recommended that AFG continue to emphasize the importance of training
in the FY 2011 program with respect to fire departments.

Funding Priorities

    Due to inherent differences among urban, suburban, and rural
firefighting needs, AFG has different priorities in the Firefighting
Training program area for departments that serve different types of
communities. These are described in detail in the FY 2011 AFG Guidance
and Application Kit.
    The highest priorities for training in all types of communities
include NFPA 1001, 1002, 472, 1581, 1021; confined space awareness;
wildland firefighting (basic and red card training); rapid intervention
or RIT; first responder; firefighter safety and survival; safety
officer; driver/operator; fire prevention; fire inspector; fire
investigator; and fire educator; NIMS/ICS; firefighting physical
ability program; emergency scene rehab; critical incident debriefing;
firefighter physical agility training; and training needed to comply
with State-mandated and federally mandated programs. Please see the
Guidance and Application Kit for additional information on the high,
moderate, and low priorities for training in urban, suburban, and rural
communities. Additional consideration include factors such as multiple
departments will be trained, instructor-led vs. media-led, call volume,
number of firefighters trained, and population served. Large
departments with a high number of active firefighters will receive
additional consideration.
    (ii.) Firefighting Equipment Acquisition. AFG funds are available
for equipment to enhance the safety or effectiveness of firefighting,
rescue, and fire-based EMS functions. Equipment requested must meet all
mandatory requirements as well as any national and/or state DHS-adopted
standards. See NFPA standards at http://www.NFPA.org. The equipment
requested should improve the health and safety of the public and
firefighters.

Funding Priorities

    Highest priority for funding will be first-time equipment purchases
to support an existing mission and/or replace obsolete, broken/
inoperable equipment. A moderate priority will be equipment purchases
to increase capabilities within the department's existing mission or to
meet a new risk. Low priority for funding will be requests for
equipment for a new mission to meet an existing risk and/or request
additional supplies or reserve equipment. A department takes on a ``new
mission'' when it expands its services into areas not previously
offered, such as a fire department seeking funds to provide EMS for the
first time. A ``new risk'' presents itself when a department must
address risks that have materialized in the department's area of
responsibility, e.g., the construction of a new nuclear power plant
could constitute a ``new mission.''
    Additional consideration will be given for the following factors:
     Equipment that has a direct effect on firefighters' health
and safety
     Frequency of use and type of jurisdiction served
     Age of equipment being replaced
     Equipment that benefits other jurisdictions
     Equipment that brings the department into compliance with
nationally recommended standards (i.e., NFPA) or statutory compliance
(i.e., Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA))
     Call volume
     Population served
    (iii.) Firefighter Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Acquisition.
AFG funds are available to acquire primarily OSHA-required and NFPA-
compliant PPE for firefighting personnel. Equipment requested must meet
all current mandatory requirements, as well as any national and/or
state DHS-adopted standards. Equipment requested should have the goal
of increasing firefighter safety. Information on the relevant NFPA
standards can be obtained from the organization's Web site at http://www.NFPA.org. If requesting training for any items in this section,
please list them under Additional Funding for each item to which it
applies.

Funding Priorities

    The highest priorities for funding will be departments requesting
new PPE for the first time and departments replacing or updating
obsolete PPE to the current standard. The moderate priority for funding
will be requests to replace torn, tattered, damaged, or contaminated
PPE. PPE requested to address a new risk also will be considered a
moderate funding priority. A low priority for funding will be requests
to replace worn but usable PPE that is not compliant to the current
edition of the NFPA standard and/or to handle a new mission, or to
increase current inventory.

Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus

    Awards will be based on number of seated positions in the
department's vehicle fleet and the age of existing SCBAs, limited to
one spare cylinder (unless justified otherwise in the Request Details
narrative for the PPE activity). New SCBAs must have automatic-on or
integrated Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devices and be CBRNE-
compliant to the current edition of the NFPA 1981 standard.

Funding Priorities

    Highest priority will be to replace SCBAs that are compliant with
NFPA 1981, pre-2002 Edition. All requests must be justified in the
Request Details narrative for the PPE activity. Somewhat lower priority
will be to replace SCBAs that are compliant with the 2007 edition of
NFPA 1981. It will be a low priority to replace SCBAs that are
compliant with the 2002 edition of NFPA 1981 (the need for which must
be justified in the PPE narrative).
    (iv.) Firefighter Wellness and Fitness Activities. Wellness and
Fitness programs are intended to strengthen first responders so that
their mental, physical, and emotional capabilities are resilient enough
to withstand the demands of emergency services response. To be eligible
for FY 2011 funding of this activity, fire departments must offer, or
plan to offer, all four of the following basic programs:
     Periodic health screenings.
     Entry physical examinations.
     Immunizations.
     Behavioral health programs.

Funding Priorities

    The highest priority will be to fund requests from applicants that
currently do not have any of the four basic

programs listed above and seek funds to offer all four programs. A
moderate priority will be to support requests from applicants that
currently offer some of the four basic programs and want to begin to
offer the remaining programs. Low priority will be given to requests
from applicants that want to obtain physical fitness equipment but do
not offer the four basic wellness and fitness programs. Additional
consideration will be given to applicants with regard to their call
volume, population served, and whether they make member participation
in the wellness and fitness programs mandatory.
    (v.) Modifications to Fire Stations. FY 2011 AFG Grants may be used
to modify and retrofit existing fire stations and other structures
built prior to 2003. New fire station construction is not allowed. No
modification may change the structure footprint or profile. If
requesting multiple items in this activity, total funding for all
project and activities cannot exceed $100,000 per fire station.
Eligible projects under this activity must have a direct effect on the
health and safety of firefighters.
    FEMA is legally required to consider the potential impacts of all
grant-funded projects on environmental resources and historic
properties. For AFG and other preparedness grant programs, this is
accomplished via FEMA's environmental and historic preservation (EHP)
review. Grantees must comply with all applicable EHP laws, regulations,
and Executive Orders (EOs) in order to draw down their FY 2011 AFG
grant funds. Any project with the potential to impact natural resources
or historic properties cannot be initiated until FEMA has completed the
required FEMA EHP review.

Funding Priorities

    Highest priority for funding will be requests to install
modifications such as sole-source capture exhaust systems, sprinkler
systems, or smoke/fire alarm notification systems in stations that are
occupied 24/7 and offer sleeping quarters, including maritime/air
operations facilities. Somewhat lower priority will be given to
requests from departments for air quality systems and/or emergency
generators that are occupied on a daily basis and may or may not offer
sleeping quarters. Low priority will be given to requests for the
modifications cited above from departments whose facilities are
occupied 24/7 but do not offer sleeping quarters as well as requests
from training facilities. Additional consideration will be provided for
the age of the building, with older facilities receiving greater
priority; call volume and the population served also will receive
additional consideration.
    (2) Firefighting Vehicles Acquisition Program.
    AFG provides grants for new firefighting vehicles, used fire
apparatus originally designed for firefighting, or refurbished
apparatus originally designed for firefighting. Funds also may be used
to refurbish a vehicle the department currently owns, but only if the
vehicle to be refurbished was designed originally for firefighting. New
vehicles purchased with AFG funds must be compliant with NFPA 1901
(Standard for Automotive Apparatus) or NFPA 1906 (Standard for Wildland
Fire Apparatus). Used apparatus must be compliant with NFPA 1901 or
1906 for the year the vehicle was manufactured. Refurbished apparatus
must meet the current NFPA 1912 (Standard for Fire Apparatus
Refurbishing).
    Applicants were allowed to apply for more than one vehicle, but
requests cannot exceed the financial cap based on population listed in
the application. If a department submits multiple applications and more
than one of those requests are approved, the department will be held to
the same financial cap.
    New in FY 2011: Due to nationwide statistics indicating the high
number of fire-based EMS calls, ambulances have been elevated from
being a low funding priority to being a high priority vehicle. In other
words, for fire-based EMS, ambulances will be the equivalent to a
pumper as a high priority item.

Funding Priorities

    Inherent differences exist between urban, suburban, and rural
firefighting conventions. For this reason, DHS has developed different
priorities in the Firefighting Vehicles Program for departments that
serve different types of communities. The chart below delineates the
priorities for firefighting vehicles for each type of community.
    New for 2011: Due to nationwide statistics indicating the high
number of fire-based EMS calls, ambulances have been moved from a low
priority to a high priority.
Firefighting Vehicle Program Priorities
    Within each category (high, medium, or low priority), vehicles are
listed in order of their funding priority for the community type
listed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Priority                   Urban communities       Suburban communities        Rural communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.................................  Pumper..................  Pumper..................  Pumper.
                                    Ambulance...............  Ambulance...............  Ambulance.
                                    Aerial..................  Aerial..................  Brush-Attack.
                                    Quint (Aerial < 76')....  Quint (Aerial < 76')....  Tanker-Tender.
                                    Quint (Aerial > 76')....  Quint (Aerial > 76')....  Quint (Aerial < 76').
                                    Rescue..................  Tanker-Tender...........
M.................................  Command.................  Rescue..................  Command.
                                    Hazmat..................  Command.................  Hazmat.
                                    Light/Air Unit..........  Light/Air Unit..........  Rescue.
                                    Rehab Unit..............  Brush-Attack............  Light/Air Unit.
                                    Foam truck..............  Rehab Unit..............
L.................................  Aircraft Rescue and Fire  ARFFV...................  Foam Truck.
                                     Fighting Vehicle
                                     (ARFFV).
                                                              Foam truck..............  Aerial.
                                                              Highway Safety Unit.....  Highway Safety Unit.
                                    Brush-Attack............  Fire Boat...............  ARFFV.
                                    Foam Truck.                                         Rehab Unit.
                                    Fire Boat.                                          Fire Boat.
                                    Tanker-Tender.
                                    Highway Safety Unit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional consideration will be given to the following factors:
     Have automatic aid agreements, mutual aid agreements or
both.
     Request the replacement of open cab/jump seat
configurations.

     Converted vehicles not designed or intended for use in the
fire service.
     Age of the vehicle being replaced; older equipment.
     Age of the newest vehicle in the department's fleet that
is like the vehicle to be replaced.
     Average age of the fleet; older equipment within the same
class.
     Call volume.
     Population served.
    (3) Administrative Costs.
    Panelists will assess the administrative costs requested in any
application and determine if the request is reasonable and in the best
interest of the Program.

Nonaffiliated EMS Organization Priorities

    AFG funds may be used to enhance emergency medical services
provided by nonaffiliated EMS organizations, but the authorizing
statute limits funding for these organizations to no more than 2
percent of the appropriated amount.
    The Criteria Development Panel recommended that it is more cost-
effective to enhance or expand an existing EMS organization, by
providing training or equipment, than it is to create a new service.
Therefore, communities attempting to initiate EMS services will receive
the lowest competitive rating. Requests for equipment and training to
prepare for response to incidents involving CBRNE are available under
the applicable Equipment and Training activities.
    Specific rating criteria and priorities for each of the grant
categories are provided below following the descriptions of this year's
eligible programs. The rating criteria, in conjunction with the program
description, provide an understanding of the evaluation standards. In
each activity, the size of the population served by the applicant will
be taken into consideration, with larger populations afforded more
consideration than smaller populations. DHS will explain further the
priorities in the Guidance and Application Kit. Applicants may apply
for as many of the activities within this program as they deem
necessary.
    (1) EMS Operations and Safety Program.
    Five different activities may be funded under this program area:
     First responder/Emergency Medical Responder (EMR)
training.
     EMS equipment acquisition.
     EMS personal protective equipment.
     EMS wellness and fitness.
     Modifications to EMS facilities.
    (i) First Responder/EMS Training Activities. AFG provides grants to
train EMS personnel. Examples of training activities include, but are
not limited to, first responder, Basic Life Support (BLS), Advanced
Life Support (ALS), Paramedic, Hazmat Operations, or Rescue Operations.

Funding Priorities

    Since training is a prerequisite to the effective use of EMS
equipment, organizations that request items more focused on training
activities will receive a higher competitive rating than organizations
that focus on equipment.
    A high competitive rating will be given to nonaffiliated EMS
organizations that are planning to upgrade services to ALS level of
response. Specifically, organizations that are seeking to elevate the
response level from EMT-B to EMT-I will receive the highest priority,
and organizations that are seeking to elevate the response level from
EMT-I to EMT-P will receive a high priority.
    Requests for support of Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic
(EMT-P) training will receive high priority. The second priority is to
elevate emergency responders' capabilities from first responder to a
BLS level of response, i.e., EMT-B. Due to the time and cost, upgrading
an organization's response level from EMT-B to EMT-P is a lower
priority. Organizations seeking training in rescue or Hazmat operations
will receive lower consideration than organizations seeking training
for medical services.
    The lowest priority is to fund first responder training.
Organizations seeking to train a high percentage of the active first
responders will receive additional consideration when applying under
the EMS Training Activity.
    Copies of NFPA standards may be reviewed at http://www.NFPA.org.
    (ii) EMS Equipment Acquisition. AFG funds are available for
equipment to enhance the safety or effectiveness of EMS response.
Equipment requested must meet all mandatory requirements as well as any
national, state, or DHS-adopted standards. Equipment requested should
solve interoperability or compatibility problems as may be required by
local jurisdictions. Equipment requested, particularly decontamination
and Hazmat equipment, is fundable to the current level of an
organization's capabilities.

Funding Priorities

    Highest priority in the EMS Training activity will be given to
requests to upgrade service from Basic Life Support (BLS) to Advanced
Life Support (ALS), i.e., EMT-I and EMT-P. With regard to compliance
with NFPA standards, requests for equipment that brings the department
into compliance with national, state or local jurisdictional
requirements will receive high priority. Of moderate priority will be
requests for equipment that brings a department into voluntary
compliance with NFPA/OSHA standards and requests to expand current EMS.
Low priority will be given to requests to begin a new service, to
replace used or obsolete equipment, and to buy equipment that does not
affect statutory compliance or voluntary compliance with a national
standard. Also low in priority will be requests for equipment for
HAZMAT operations/technicians and for rescue operations/technicians.
    Additional consideration will be given to requests that support a
regional collaboration and to the applicant's call volume and
population served.
    (iii) EMS Personal Protective Equipment. AFG funds are available to
acquire EMS PPE for first responder personnel. Equipment requested must
meet all mandatory requirements, as well as any current national and/or
state DHS-adopted standards or local EMS protocols.

Funding Priorities

    High priority for funding will be requests to buy new PPE for the
first time and requests to buy PPE for the first time and/or for
applicants that need to replace or update obsolete PPE to the current
standard. Moderate priority will be given to requests to replace torn,
tattered, damaged, or contaminated PPE. Low priority will be given to
replacing worn but still usable PPE that is not compliant to the
current edition of NFPA standard and/or to handle a new mission or to
increase the PPE inventory.
    Applicants must indicate grant-purchased equipment will be operated
by sufficiently trained staff. Failure to meet this requirement will
result in ineligibility for funding. Additional considerations will be
given to the percentage firefighters/EMS personnel served by the
project, age of equipment, call volume, and population served.

SCBA Priorities

    Awards will be based on the number of seated positions in
department's vehicle fleet and the age of existing SCBAs, limited to
one spare cylinder (unless justified in the PPE activity narrative).
Highest priority for funding of SCBAs will be to replace SCBA that are
compliant with the pre-2002 edition of NFPA 1981. Moderate priority
will be given to replacing SCBA that are compliant with the 2002
edition of NFPA 1981. Low priority will be given

to requests to replace SCBA that are compliant with the 2007 edition of
NFPA 1981 (requests must be justified in the PPE narrative).
    (iv) EMS Wellness and Fitness Activities. Wellness programs are
intended to strengthen uniformed personnel so the mental, physical, and
emotional capabilities are resilient to withstand the demands of
emergency services response. To be eligible for funding under this
activity in FY 2011, organizations must offer, or plan to offer, all
four of the following basic wellness and fitness programs:
     Periodic health screenings
     Entry physical examinations (compliant with current NFPA
1582)
     Immunizations
     Behavioral health programs

Funding Priorities

    Highest priority will be given to requests from departments that do
not offer any of the four basic programs and want to use requested
funds to establish all four programs. Moderate priority will be given
to requests from departments that offer some of the four basic programs
but request funds to offer the remaining activities. Low priority will
be given to requests from departments that want to purchase physical
fitness equipment but do not offer the four basic programs.
    Priority consideration will be given to departments that have some
of the Priority 1 programs in place, i.e., initial medical exams, job-
related immunization program, as required by the department, or law;
annual medical/fitness evaluations; behavioral health programs; and
requiring that participation in the Wellness and Fitness programs be
mandatory for their members. Applicants must apply for funds to
implement the Priority 1 activities before applying for funds for any
additional program or equipment. In addition, funded medical exams must
meet current NFPA 1582, as required by DHS standards. Priority 2
programs include candidate physical ability evaluations, formal fitness
and injury prevention programs and equipment, requests from departments
having a plan to sustain their wellness and fitness programs, and
requests from those that make it mandatory for all members to
participate in the wellness and fitness programs.
    (v) Modification to EMS Facilities. Grants may be used only to
modify or retrofit existing EMS facilities that were built before 2003
and do not have specific safety features. The construction of new
facilities is not eligible for funding. Grant funds may only be used to
retrofit existing structures built prior to 2003 that do not have the
requisite safety features. If requesting multiple items in this
activity, funding cannot exceed a maximum of $100,000 per station.
Remodeling to fulfill other grant initiatives is limited to $10,000.
Eligible projects under this activity must have a direct effect on the
health and safety of first responders.
    FEMA is legally required to consider the potential impacts of all
grant-funded projects on environmental resources and historic
properties. For AFG and other preparedness grant programs, this is
accomplished via FEMA's EHP Review. Grantees must comply with all
applicable EHP laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs) in order
to draw down their FY 2011 AFG grant funds. Any project with the
potential to impact natural resources or historic properties cannot be
initiated until FEMA has completed the required FEMA EHP review.
Grantees that implement projects prior to receiving EHP approval from
FEMA risk de-obligation of funds.
    AFG projects that involve the installation of equipment, ground-
disturbing activities, and new construction, including communication
towers, or modification/renovation of existing buildings or structures
must undergo a FEMA EHP review. Activities not specifically excluded
from a FEMA EHP review also will require an EHP review per the GPD
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA). For more information on
the PEA, see Information Bulletin 345 at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/bulletins/info345.pdf.

Funding Priorities

    Highest priority in this activity will go to departments requesting
direct sole-source capture exhaust systems, sprinkler systems, or
smoke/fire alarm notification systems for stations with sleeping
quarters, including maritime/air operations facilities, that are
occupied 24/7. Moderate priority will be given to departments (with or
without sleeping quarters) that request air quality systems and/or
emergency generators. Low priority will be given to departments
requesting funding of one of the high or moderate priorities listed
above but do not have facilities that are occupied 24/7 and do not have
sleeping quarters and also to requests from training facilities.
Additional consideration will be given to departments (with or without
sleeping quarters) that request air quality systems and/or emergency
generators; additional consideration also will be given concerning the
factors of call volume and population served.
    (2) EMS Vehicles Acquisition Program.
    Due to inherent differences among urban, suburban, and rural
firefighting needs, AFG has different priorities in the Vehicles
program area for departments that serve different types of communities.
Applicants requesting vehicles that do not have driver/operators
trained to U.S. Department of Transportation Emergency Vehicle
Operators Course (EVOC) National Standard Curriculum, or equivalent,
and are not planning to have a training program in place by the time
the vehicle is delivered, will not receive an award.
    To be eligible for funding, new vehicles purchased with AFG funds
must be compliant with current General Services Administration
standards, specifically KKK-A-1822E (Guide for Emergency Medical
Services and Systems).
    Funds may be used to acquire new, used, or refurbished EMS
vehicles. Funds may also be used to refurbish a vehicle the
organization currently owns. Refurbished apparatus must meet currently
applicable standards (NFPA, GSA KKK-1822F Specification standards).

Funding Priorities

    The following chart shows the priorities in the EMS Vehicle Program
for FY 2011. The priorities are the same for all types of communities:
Urban, suburban, and rural.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO11.000

    Applicants may request funding for a training program in the
Vehicles section of the application, but it must be listed in the
Additional Funding area in the Request Details section. Driver training
programs must be in place prior to vehicle delivery.
    (3) Administrative Costs.
    Panelists will assess the administrative costs requested in each
application and determine whether the request is reasonable and in the
best interest of the Program.

Regional Project Priorities

    A regional project is one in which multiple organizations serving
more than one local jurisdiction benefit directly from the activities
implemented with the grant funds. Regional projects are designed to
facilitate efficiency and communications on the fire ground among
multiple jurisdictions. Any eligible applicant may act as a host
applicant and apply for a regional project. Note that a county fire
department applying for a countywide communications system would NOT be
considered a regional project because it does not benefit multiple
jurisdictions.

Funding Priorities

    The funding priorities for regional requests are the same
priorities as indicated previously for fire and EMS but are limited to
the following areas:
    (1) Training.
     Training that benefits multiple jurisdictions and/or all
regional partners.
     Training props.
     Training trailers, to include manufactured burn trailers.
     EMS training throughout the region to meet local
jurisdictional standards.
    (2) Equipment.
     Communications equipment to include infrastructure
(dispatch centers), handheld portables, pagers, repeaters, etc.
     Standardization of EMS equipment to meet local
jurisdictional standards.
     Other equipment that would be beneficial the mission of
all regional partners.
    (3) Personal Protective Equipment.
     SCBA (face piece, voice amp, harness/PASS device, one
spare cylinder).
     Accountability systems.
     PPE that meets NFPA and OSHA blood-borne pathogen
standards.
     Firefighting PPE.
    Not Eligible for Regional Funding: Wellness and fitness,
modification to facilities, and vehicle acquisition are not eligible as
regional projects.

Award Information

    Applications for regional projects will not be included in the host
applicant's funding limitations detailed in Part II of the Guidance and
Application Kit. However, regional applicants will be subject to their
own limitation based on the total population that the regional project
will serve. For example, a regional project serving a population of
fewer than 500,000 people will be limited to $1 million. A regional
project's cost share will be based on the total population of the
entire region rather than on the population served by the host
applicant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-29500 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-64-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 61614]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24615]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. IC19-32-000, IC19-33-000, and IC19-40-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities; Requests for
Emergency Extensions for FERC-725M, FERC-516A, and FERC-539

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION:  Notice of requests for emergency extensions.

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

SUMMARY:  In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) has solicited public comments on three information
collections: FERC-725M (Mandatory Reliability Standard: FAC-003-4,
Vegetation Management), FERC-516A (Standardization of Small Generator
Interconnection Agreements and Procedures), and FERC-539 (Gas Pipeline
Certificates: Import and Export Related Applications). FERC submitted
requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for short-term
emergency extensions for the three information collections to ensure
they remain active while FERC completes the pending PRA renewal
processes. No changes are being made to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Brown may be reached by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA renewal process for each of the
three information collections is ongoing. To ensure that OMB approvals
of the current information collections remain active during the PRA
renewal process, FERC has submitted requests to the OMB for short-term
emergency extensions.
    Title: FERC-725M, Mandatory Reliability Standard: FAC-003-4,
Vegetation Management (OMB Control No. 1902-0263).
    Docket No. for Ongoing PRA Renewal: IC19-32.
    An emergency extension request and justification (for three
additional months) were electronically submitted to OMB on September
20, 2019. OMB disapproved the emergency extension request and
collection on October 2, 2019. FERC then submitted a formal request to
OMB on October 8, 2019,\1\ for an emergency reinstatement and three-
month extension. The request is still pending at OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The letter is dated October 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Titles: FERC-516A, Standardization of Small Generator
Interconnection Agreements and Procedures (OMB Control No. 1902-0203);
and FERC-539, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import and Export Related
Applications (OMB Control No. 1902-0062).
    Docket Nos. for Ongoing PRA Renewals: IC19-40 (for FERC-516A) and
IC19-33 (for FERC-539).
    FERC submitted formal requests to OMB on October 29, 2019, for
emergency three-month extensions (to January 31, 2020). On October 31,
2019, OMB approved two-month extensions to December 31, 2019, for FERC-
516A and FERC-539.

    Dated: November 1, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24615 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P