[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40932-40934]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0193; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01612-T;
Amendment 39-21585; AD 2021-11-23]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by
reference. This AD also requires, for certain airplanes, an update of
the hydraulic monitoring system to include additional redundancy. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 3, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 3,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus SAS service information
identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL,
Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.airbus.com. You may
view this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0193.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0193; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3218<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0268, dated December 4, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0268) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. EASA AD 2020-
0268 refers to Airbus A350 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 5, ``Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL),'' Revision 04, dated
May 29, 2020; and Airbus A350 ALS Part 5, ``Fuel Airworthiness
Limitations (FAL),'' Variation 4.1, dated September 15, 2020. Airplanes
with an original airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued after September 15, 2020, must
comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the
approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet;
this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the
applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on March 26, 2021 (86 FR 16117). The NPRM was prompted by a
determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations
are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD
2020-0268. The NPRM also proposed to require, for certain airplanes, an
update of the hydraulic monitoring system to include additional
redundancy.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address the overheat failure mode of
the hydraulic engine-driven pump (EDP), which may cause a fast
temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid, and, if combined with an
inoperative fuel tank inerting system, could lead to an uncontrolled
overheat of the hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in ignition of the
fuel-air mixture of the affected fuel tank. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated
that it supports the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0268 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations related to fuel tank ignition

prevention and fuel tank flammability reduction.
    This AD would also require accomplishing a certain airworthiness
limitation using the following service information. This service
information describes procedures for an update of the hydraulic
monitoring system to include additional redundancy (i.e., modifying the
case-drain filter manifolds by installing new dual temperature sensors
on the hydraulic EDP). These documents are distinct since they apply to
different airplane models.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P025, dated August 10,
2020.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P027, dated November 24,
2020.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P029, dated December 16,
2020.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                   Parts cost             Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 510 work-hours x $85 per   Up to $29,320..........  Up to $72,670.............  Up to $1,090,050.
 hour = Up to $43,350.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-11-23 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21585; Docket No. FAA-2021-0193;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01612-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 3,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category; with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued after September 15, 2020.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance checks; 29, Hydraulic power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the overheat failure mode of the
hydraulic engine-driven pump, which may cause a fast temperature
rise of the hydraulic fluid, and, if combined with an inoperative
fuel tank inerting system, could lead to an uncontrolled overheat of
the hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in ignition of the fuel-air
mixture of the affected fuel tank.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0268, dated December 4, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0268).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0268

    (1) Where Section 6 of the service information referenced in
EASA AD 2020-0268 specifies to update the hydraulic monitoring
system ``to include additional redundancy to be installed (MOD
114073 and MOD 114075 OR 114531 and MOD 114075 OR MOD 114533 and MOD
114075 OR MOD 114535 and MOD 114075),'' this AD requires

that the update of the hydraulic monitoring system be accomplished
using the method of compliance specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
through (iv) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For Model A350-941 airplanes identified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A350-29-P025 (MOD 114531 and MOD 114075): The modification
must be done in accordance with paragraphs 3.C., 3.D., and 3.E. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-
P025, dated August 10, 2020.
    (ii) For Model A350-941 airplanes identified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A350-29-P027 (MOD 114533 and MOD 114075): The modification
must be done in accordance with paragraphs 3.C., 3.D., and 3.E. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-
P027, dated November 24, 2020.
    (iii) For Model A350-941 airplanes identified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A350-29-P029 (MOD 114535 and MOD 114075): The modification
must be done in accordance with paragraphs 3.C., 3.D., and 3.E. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-
P029, dated December 16, 2020.
    (iv) For Model A350-941 airplanes not identified in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD, and without MOD 114073 and
114075 installed in production: The modification must be done using
a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2020-0268 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2020-0268 do not apply to this AD.
    (4) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0268 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (5) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0268 is at the applicable
``thresholds'' as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3)
of EASA AD 2020-0268, or within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (6) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2020-0268 do not apply to this AD.
    (7) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0268 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and CDCCLs are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2020-0268.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

 (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0268,
dated December 4, 2020.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P025, dated August 10,
2020.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P027, dated November 24,
2020.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P029, dated December 16,
2020.
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0268, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus
SAS service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93
45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0193.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 21, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16241 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57859-57863]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 107

[Docket No. PHMSA-2022-0033 (HM-208J)]
RIN 2137-AF59

Hazardous Materials: Adjusting Registration and Fee Assessment
Program

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

(PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this ANPRM to solicit feedback on
potential adjustments to the statutorily mandated hazardous materials
registration and fee assessment program. Actions such as the potential
adjustment of fees or the addition of other entities among those
required to register may be necessary to fund PHMSA's national
emergency preparedness grant programs at the newly authorized level in
accordance with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. To
fully engage with stakeholders, this ANPRM solicits comments and input
on questions related to the scope of the registration and fee
assessment program. Any comments, data, and information received will
be used to evaluate and draft proposed amendments.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 21, 2022. However, PHMSA
will consider late-filed comments to the extent possible.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2022-0033 (HM-208J) by any of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 in 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-2022-0033) or RIN 2137-AF59 for this ANPRM at the
beginning of the comment. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided. If sent by mail, comments must be
submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of
receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped
postcard.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office; see ADDRESSES.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and 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 ANPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive
to this ANPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPRIETARY.'' PHMSA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this ANPRM. Submissions
containing CBI should be sent to Yul B. Baker Jr., Standards and
Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-
8553, PHMSA, East Building, PHH10, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Any commentary that PHMSA receives, which is not
specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yul B. Baker Jr., Standards and
Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-
8553, PHMSA, East Building, PHH10, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 and Adam Lucas, Operations System Division, Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety,<PHONE_NUMBER> PHMSA, East Building,
PHH-60, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Number of Registrants for Registration Year 2021-22
III. Registration Fee Scenario Table
IV. Options for Public Comment

I. Background

    PHMSA is considering an adjustment to our statutorily mandated
registration and fee assessment program for persons who transport or
offer for transportation certain categories and quantities of hazardous
materials. PHMSA conducts a national hazardous materials registration
program under the mandate in 49 U.S.C. 5108 for a person \1\ who offers
for transportation or transports certain hazardous materials in
intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce. The registration program
implements the mandate for persons to file a registration statement
with the Secretary of Transportation--as delegated to PHMSA--and
collects registration and processing fees from persons required to file
a registration statement (hereafter referred to as ``registrants'') to
fund Emergency Preparedness (EP) grants. EP grants support hazardous
materials emergency response planning and training activities by
states, local governments, and Native American Tribes. EP grants also
fund non-profit organizations to provide ``train-the-trainer'' programs
for hazardous materials emergency response training and hazardous
materials employee training. Additionally, EP grants support the
development of the Emergency Response Guide (ERG) and provides funds
for grantee monitoring and technical assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Defined in 49 CFR 171.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, registration and fee requirements \2\ apply to a
person who offers for transportation--or who transports--hazardous
material in foreign, interstate, or intrastate commerce. Specifically,
the requirements apply to shippers and carriers if they offer or
transport the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Sec.  107.601 Applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. A highway route-controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive)
material.
    2. More than 25 kg (55 pounds) of a Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3
(explosive) material in a motor vehicle, rail car or freight container.
    3. More than one L (1.06 quarts) per package of a material
extremely toxic by inhalation.
    4. A shipment of a quantity of hazardous materials in a bulk
packaging having a capacity equal to or greater than 13,248 L (3,500
gallons) for liquids or gases, or more than 13.24 cubic meters (468
cubic feet) for solids.
    5. A shipment in other than a bulk packaging of 2,268 kg. (5,000
pounds) gross weight or more of one class of hazardous materials for
which placarding of a vehicle, rail car, or freight container is
required.
    6. Except for certain farming operations, a quantity of hazardous
material that requires placarding.
    Furthermore, PHMSA has discretion to require additional persons to
register--beyond those who offer, and transport certain categories and
quantities of hazardous materials listed in 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(1)--and
to set the annual registration fee between the statutorily mandated
minimum and maximum amounts. See 49 U.S.C. 5108(b), 5116, and 5128(b).
PHMSA may currently set an annual registration

fee between a minimum of $250 and maximum of $3,000.
    Since 2010, the annual registration fee has been set at $250 (plus
a $25 processing fee) for small businesses \3\ and not-for-profit
organizations (hereafter referred to as ``small businesses'') and
$2,575 (plus a $25 processing fee) for not small businesses (hereafter
referred to as ``large businesses'') in accordance with 49 CFR
107.612(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Small Business'' here is defined as either a ``small
business'' per the SBA or a non-profit, which statutorily pay the
same rate as small businesses, regardless of size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-58)--commonly known as the
``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'' (BIL) \4\--into law and authorized
the Secretary of Transportation to expend $46,825,000 from EP funds to
carry out the grants program, for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. As
such, the BIL increases the authorized level of the EP grants program
by $18,507,000. To fully fund the EP grants program to the increased
authorization amounts, PHMSA will need to adjust fees for the national
registration and fee program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See BIL at: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684enr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current registration fee structure does not consider the
relative risk of applicants, products, transport routes, or other
relative risks (or lack thereof) imposed by an applicant to the public
due to the specific hazardous materials being transported. This poses
challenges and potential opportunities for improvement, consistent with
market-based principles as well as principles of equity and fairness:
the potential for a registration scheme that reflects many applicants'
relatively minor imposition of risk on the public as well as a more
equitable fee structure for the few entities that pose a
disproportionately larger risk on the public.

II. Number of Registrants for Registration Year 2021-22 \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A registration year runs from July 1 of the current year to
June 30 of the following year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the current registration year 2021-22 as an example, there
were 25,529 small business registrants that paid $6,382,250 in
registration fees and $638,225 in processing fees--while there were
6,673 large business registrants that paid $17,183,975 in registration
fees and $166,825 in processing fees. The total funds from all
registrants--not including processing fees--were approximately
$23,565,225 for the registration year. PHMSA may collect additional
monies to fund EP grants at the increased authorization level of
$46,825,000 specified in the BIL. As one approach, PHMSA has asked
Congress for authorization to increase the maximum fee for a registrant
as a possible means to collect additional funds. Other approaches
include expanding the pool of persons subject to registration or
increasing fee amounts from current levels. Though more complicated, an
additional approach could involve any number of factors to capture fees
based on the relative risk an applicant poses via the transportation of
hazardous material goods.
    Historically, as noted in Section I. ``Background,'' there are
triggering requirements for registration and fee payments based on
certain types of transport activity performed by a shipper or carrier.
If a company is required to register, assigned fees are based on the
type and size of the business performing the activity. PHMSA is
contemplating an approach of factoring in the level of exposure or risk
introduced by a shipper or carrier when assigning fees--for example, if
a business operates globally and transports a particularly hazardous
material, it might incur a slightly higher fee than a smaller business,
which poses a relatively minor risk to the public and may therefore
incur a lower fee. Thus, in this ANPRM, PHMSA solicits comment from the
public on how best to collect additional funding and to help initiate
ideas on different approaches. PHMSA provides a registration fee
scenario table in Section III. ``Registration Fee Scenario Table'' to
offer a basic illustration of the potential impacts of the fee changes
to registrants. Section IV. ``Options for Public Comment'' provides
specific scenarios PHMSA is considering for collecting additional funds
as well as discussion of potential research for development of a
methodology for a more equitable registration scheme. The scenarios are
split into two categories of options: (1) based on the current maximum
fee remaining at $3,000; and (2) based on the possibility of increasing
the maximum fee.

III. Registration Fee Scenario Table

    To achieve full funding at the new authorized spending level to
fund the EP grants program, PHMSA presents a fee scenario table as
visual aid on possible impacts of raising funds from potential sources
by increasing the fees on large businesses, increasing the number of
large businesses required to register, or any combination thereof.
     Scenarios A and B involve scenarios in which the entire
required sum is raised exclusively by increasing one of the sources.
For example, raising only the fee paid by large businesses, but leaving
small business fees and registration requirements unchanged. The
purpose of providing these scenarios is not to necessarily suggest
their adoption, but rather to illustrate the outer limits of the
potential factors necessary to raise additional funding.
     Scenarios C-D represent two potential hybrid scenarios, in
which additional funding is attained from raising several sources,
rather than a single source. The purpose of providing these scenarios
is to illustrate how a combination of higher fees and expanded
registration requirements could achieve the desired funding level.
Therefore, PHMSA requests comments and feedback on how best to balance
the factors illustrated in the table below to reach the Congressional
funding amount, including alternative combinations of raising rates and
the possibility of expanding registration requirements.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Number of     Rate paid by
     Alternative scenarios for            small           small         Number of large       Rate paid by large   Small business burden       Total
            registrants                businesses      businesses          businesses             businesses                                 collected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: No change................          27,723            $250  6,886................  $2,575...............  28.10%...............     $24,662,200
Scenario A:
    All additional funds come from           27,723            $250  6,886................  $5,794...............  14.8%................      46,825,000
     large businesses: No expansion
     of registration requirements
     (i.e., how much should we
     raise fees on large businesses
     to avoid impacting small
     businesses?).

    Results for Scenario A: To       ..............  ..............  .....................  2.25x increase.......  -13.3% change in       ..............
     maintain current registration                                                                                small business
     requirements or rates for                                                                                burden.
     small businesses, the annual
     rate charged for large
     businesses would have to
     increase to $5,794.
Scenario B:
    Fees are fixed: All additional           27,723            $250  15,493...............  $2,575...............  14.80%...............      46,825,000
     funds come from expanding the
     registration requirements for
     large businesses..
    Results for Scenario B: To       ..............  ..............  2.25x increase in      .....................  -13.3% change in       ..............
     maintain current rates charged                                   large business                                small business
     to either small businesses or                                    applicant pool.                               burden.
     large businesses and not
     expand the pool of small
     businesses, the total number
     of large businesses charged
     would have to increase to
     15,493.
Scenario C:
    Fees on large businesses are             27,723            $250  12,911...............  $3,090...............  14.8%................      46,825,000
     raised 20%: Additional funds
     come from expanding the
     registration requirements for
     large businesses..
    Results for Scenario C: Raising  ..............  ..............  1.87x increase.......  1.20x increase.......  -13.3% change in       ..............
     the fee on large businesses by                                                                                small business
     20% but holding small business                                                                                burden.
     fees constant requires a 1.87x
     increase in eligibility for
     large businesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                          Number of                       Number of
    Alternative scenario for      Number of   Rate paid  ``non-high  Rate paid by ``non-   ``high-      Rate paid by
  registrants considered to be      small     by small     risk''     high risk'' large    risk''       ``high risk''      Small business       Total
    ``non-high risk'' large      businesses  businesses     large        businesses         large     large businesses         burden         collected
           businesses                                    businesses                      businesses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario D:
    Assume 25% of large              27,723        $250       5,165  $3,000............       1,722  $14,182...........  14.8%.............  $46,825,000
     businesses are identified
     as ``high risk.'' Fees for
     small businesses are
     unchanged. Fees for ``non-
     high risk'' large
     businesses are increased
     to the statutory limit of
     $3,000. No increased
     eligibility. All
     additional revenue comes
     from fees on ``high risk''
     large businesses.
    Results for Scenario D: The  ..........  ..........  ..........  1.17x increase....  ..........  5.5x increase.....  -13.3% change in    ...........
     25% of large businesses                                                                                small business
     deemed to be ``high risk''                                                                                burden.
     would have to pay a
     registration fee of
     $14,182, 5.5x higher than
     their current registration
     fee..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Bold figures represent the amount each variable would have to be set to make up the additional funding.
2. Bold and italicized figures represent the factor difference between the proposed level and baseline.
3. Information for table was sourced from PHMSA's Registration Dataset.

IV. Options for Public Comment

    The table above provides combinations of increased rates or
expanded registration requirements to achieve the increased funding
level. PHMSA requests feedback on these potential methods, and any
alternate methods PHMSA should consider, to achieve the increased
funding. Additionally, please address in your submission any impact on
policy considerations (e.g., equity/distributional impacts or impact on
small businesses) advocating for or against different options.
    If registration fees remain at a maximum $3,000 per year, PHMSA is
considering the following options for comment:
    1. Keep the existing registration requirements (see 49 CFR 107.601)
and raise the registration fee for large businesses from $2,575 to
$3,000.
    2. Keep the existing registration requirements and apply a nominal
fee (e.g., $25) for each facility or geographic location from which a
registered person (i.e., a company) offers for transportation, or
transports, certain hazardous materials.
    3. Modify assignment of the registration fee and/or amount based on
the commensurate hazard posed (e.g., shipping Packing Group I materials
vs. Packing Group III materials) \6\ or risk profile (e.g., frequent
vs. infrequent shipments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Packing group means a grouping according to the degree of
danger presented by hazardous materials. Packing Group I indicates
great danger; Packing Group II, medium danger; Packing Group III,
minor danger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Expand the registration requirements--for example, certain
hazardous materials are not subject to placarding when shipped
domestically, and therefore a person who offers for transportation, or
transports, these materials are generally exempt from registration--but
could be expanded with appropriate risk-based justifications.
    5. Expand the registration fee requirements to include certain
persons who acquire approvals or special permits from PHMSA that
otherwise are not subject to registration, but which should be based on
a public risk-based justification.
    If Congress allows an increase in the maximum fee, PHMSA is
considering the following options for comment:
    1. Maintain the current maximum registration fees and create an
upper tier of a higher fee for a certain category of very large
businesses. If this approach is preferred, how should PHMSA define a
``very large business?'' Specifically, what risk factors should go into
determining a very large business classification, to better account for
market-based risks to the public as well as equity factors between
applicants.
    2. Change the registration requirements to reduce the overall
number of registrants.
    3. Keep the existing registration requirements and raise the
registration

fee for large businesses from $2,575 to a dollar value below the
Congressionally authorized maximum fee (e.g., if the maximum allowed
were increased from $3,000 to $5,000).
    4. Raise fees for specific business types, classes of material, or
commodities (e.g., poisonous by inhalation material), which are
considered extremely high risk.

Registration Fee Equity

    PHMSA may initiate a research effort to develop a methodology that
could replace the existing two-tier registration structure with a more
equitable system. This action would help address transportation equity
by basing the fee structure on the amount of risk introduced into the
transportation system by an entity. This work would build on the
questions above (i.e., if registration fees remain at a maximum $3,000
per year). While PHMSA considers initiating this research effort, PHMSA
does have two related questions that may help us determine the
potential scope and how to formulate the research effort:
    1. What risk factors of transporting hazardous materials should
PHMSA consider?
    2. What data or information is available to support the choice of
these risk factors and methodology? Please provide all data or
information you would like PHMSA to consider.
    As noted above, PHMSA seeks comment on each of these questions and
proposals, as well as any additional options not included in the above-
outlined discussions.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2022, under the
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-20350 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63410-63415]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26680]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2017-0768; Amdt. No. 91-348B]
RIN 2120-AL38

Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the
Damascus Flight Information Region (FIR) (OSTT)

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the prohibition against certain flight
operations in the Damascus Flight Information Region (FIR) (OSTT) 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 where
the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The FAA finds
this action to be necessary to address a potential hazard to persons
and aircraft engaged in such flight operations. This action also
includes minor editorial changes to this Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR), consistent with other recently published flight
prohibition SFARs.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 10, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Filippell, Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-
8166; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This action extends the prohibition against flight operations in
the Damascus FIR (OSTT) in SFAR No. 114 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 where the operator of such
aircraft is a foreign air carrier, from December 30, 2018, until
December 30, 2020. This action also includes minor editorial changes to
SFAR No. 114, title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 91.1609,
consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

II. Legal Authority and Good Cause

A. Legal Authority

    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for
the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and
U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA Administrator's
authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49,
United States Code (U.S. Code), Subtitle I, sections 106(f) and (g).
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 his authority consistently with the
obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
title 49, U.S. Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 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 FAA's authority, because it
continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR
No. 114, 14 CFR 91.1609, from conducting flight operations in the
Damascus FIR (OSTT) due to the continued hazards to the safety of U.S.
civil flight operations, as described in the preamble to this final
rule. The FAA also finds that this action is fully consistent with the
obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure that the FAA
exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United
States under international agreements.

B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, 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.'' Section 553(d) also
authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the
final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this
instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment because
notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. In addition, it is contrary to the public interest to delay
the effective date of this SFAR.
    The FAA has identified an ongoing need to maintain the flight
prohibition in place in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) due to the combined
threat to civil aviation from the multifaceted conflict and extremist
threat, and militant activity. These hazards are further described in
the preamble to this rule. To the extent that the rule is based upon
classified information, such information is not permitted to be shared
with the general public. Also, threats to U.S. civil aviation and
intelligence regarding these

threats can be fluid. As a result, the agency's original proposal could
become unsuitable for minimizing the hazards to U.S. civil aviation in
the affected airspace during or after the notice and comment process.
For these reasons, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment
and any delay in the effective date for this rule.

III. Background

    On August 29, 2017, the FAA reissued SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609,
prohibiting certain flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) by all
U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the
privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except such
persons operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier;
and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the
operator is a foreign air carrier.\1\ The FAA determined that the
significant threat to U.S. civil aviation operating in the Damascus FIR
(OSTT), identified when the FAA first published SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609, on December 30, 2014,\2\ was ongoing due to the presence of
anti-aircraft weapons controlled by non-state actors, threats made by
extremist groups, de-confliction concerns, and ongoing military
fighting. Flight safety risks associated with de-confliction between
various military forces conducting operations in Syria and civil
aviation, which were identified as a concern in the original
prohibition and reissuance in 2017, have continued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 82 FR 40944. Corrected at 82 FR 42592, September 11, 2017.
    \2\ 79 FR 78299.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The FAA continues to assess the situation in the Damascus FIR
(OSTT) as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation. The Syrian conflict
between pro-regime forces and various opposition groups (which include
extremist elements) is extremely complex, exacerbated by the presence
of third parties conducting military operations against one or more
elements. Syrian allies Russia and Iran are also conducting military
operations and have deployed significant air defense and electronic
warfare capabilities, to include GPS interference, in the conflict
zone, presenting an inadvertent risk to civil aviation operations
within the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Additionally, violent extremist groups
including Islamic State of Iraq and ash Sham (ISIS) and al Qaida-
aligned entities possess, or have access to, a wide array of anti-
aircraft weapons that pose a risk to civil aviation operations within
the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Anti-regime forces, extremists, and militants
have successfully shot down multiple military aircraft using man
portable air defense systems (MANPADS) during the conflict.
Additionally, various elements have successfully targeted military
aircraft using advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM). ATGMs
primarily pose a risk to civil aircraft operating near, or parked at,
an airport. Various groups employ unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to
surveil and attack Syrian and allied fielded forces and airfields. The
multifaceted conflict in Syria poses significant risk to civil aviation
operations within the Damascus FIR (OSTT).
    Therefore, as a result of the significant continuing risk to the
safety of U.S. civil aviation in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), the FAA
extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, from
December 30, 2018, to December 30, 2020, to maintain the prohibition on
flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) 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 where the operator
is a foreign air carrier. 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.
    The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and
evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen may be
able to operate safely in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Amendments to SFAR
No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, may be appropriate if the risk to aviation
safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 114,
Sec.  91.1609, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.
    The FAA is also incorporating minor editorial changes for
clarifying purposes in Sec.  91.1609, including revising the title of
the FIR, and clarifying the procedure for considering approval and
exemption requests. These changes are consistent with other recently
published SFARs. The FAA is also republishing the details concerning
the approval and exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this
preamble so that interested persons will be able to refer to this final
rule for all relevant information regarding SFAR No. 114.

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 Damascus FIR (OSTT). The FAA is clarifying the
approval process for SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609(c), consistent with
other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, as previously
indicated. If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S.
Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person
described in SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609(a), including a U.S. air
carrier or commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport
civilian or military passengers or cargo, or other operations, in the
Damascus FIR (OSTT), that department, agency, or instrumentality may
request the FAA to approve persons described in SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609(a), to conduct such operations.
    An approval request must be made directly by the requesting
department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government 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. The FAA will not accept or consider requests for
approval by anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality. In addition, the senior official signing the letter
requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency,
or instrumentality must be sufficiently positioned within the
organization to demonstrate that the senior leadership of the
requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request
for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize
operational 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, requests for approval must be submitted to the
FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the
requesting department, agency, or

instrumentality intends to commence the proposed operations.
    The letter must be sent 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 approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to
make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact
the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202)
267-8166, to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may
request approval from the FAA for multiple persons covered under SFAR
No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, and/or for multiple flight operations. To the
extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be
covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department,
agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must
describe--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
mission being supported;
     The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the
SFAR;
     To the extent known, the specific locations in the
Damascus FIR (OSTT) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted,
including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the
aircraft while it is operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) and the
airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will
take-off and land; and
     The method by which the 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., 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 Damascus FIR (OSTT). Additional
operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA
approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be
identified to, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or
Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, from the FAA for
operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), before such operators commence
such operations. The approval conditions discussed below apply to any
such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the email
address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division, by calling
(202) 267-8166.
    If an approval request includes classified information, requestors
may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Michael Filippell for
instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is
listed in the For Further Information Contact section of this final
rule.
    FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609,
does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility
to comply with all applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of
civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificate,
OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must further comply with
all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments or
agencies 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 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 Damascus FIR (OSTT); 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 from or related to the approved
operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT).
    (3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that
may be imposed 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 issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.
    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 authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s),
and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that
requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those
contained in the approval letter.

VI. Information Regarding Petitions for Exemption

    Any operations not conducted under an approval issued by the FAA
through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted
under an exemption from SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609. A petition for
exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11 and requires exceptional
circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process set
forth previously. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR
11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to
the FAA--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
operation;
     The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the
SFAR;
     The specific locations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) where
the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited
to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating
in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) and the airports, airfields and/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 that the operator will use to
minimize the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed
operations, so 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.
    Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred
to previously, are required as a condition of any exemption that may be
issued under SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609.

    The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No.
114, Sec.  91.1609, may be planned for the governments of other
countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While these
operations will not be permitted through the approval process, the FAA
will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited
basis and prior to any private exemption requests.

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (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 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, 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 that 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 notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not
required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses
described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities
are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States and 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 entire Damascus FIR
(OSTT). At the time of initial issuance of SFAR No. 114, 14 CFR
91.1609, on December 30, 2014, the FAA determined that incremental
costs were minimal for U.S. operators of large transport category
airplanes, because those U.S. operators conducting overflights in the
Damascus FIR (parts 121 and 125 operators) had voluntarily ceased
operating in the Damascus FIR beginning in 2011 due to the onset of
hostilities in Syria, prior to the FAA's action prohibiting U.S. civil
operations in the Damascus FIR. The FAA also determined that the
incremental costs of SFAR No. 114 were minimal for ``on-demand'' large
carriers (parts 121 and 121/135) and small ``on-demand'' operators
(parts 135, 125, and 91K). The FAA believed that few, if any, of these
``on-demand'' operators were still operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT)
immediately before the FAA issued FDC NOTAM 4/4936 due to preexisting
hostilities in Syria dating back to 2011.
    As previously discussed, the FAA continues to assess the situation
in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation
due to continued military operations. The FAA believes there are very
few, if any, U.S. operators who would seek to operate in the Damascus
FIR (OSTT) at this time due to the hazards described in the Background
section of this final rule. Therefore, the FAA finds that the
incremental costs of extending SFAR No. 114, 14 CFR 91.1609 will be
minimal and are exceeded by the benefits of avoided risks of deaths,
injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's
aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged).

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 an agency is required by 5 U.S.C.
553, or any other law, 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 being required by
that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment and
any delay in the effective date for this rule. As notice and comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this situation, the regulatory
flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are not
required.

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 hazards to their operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), a
location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance 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 $155.0 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
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

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

G. Environmental Analysis

    The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957,
January 4, 1979), 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 that
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.
    In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures,'' paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a
memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination;
this memorandum has been placed 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, Federalism. The agency has determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would 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, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would 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, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and 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 would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, Feb. 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national
security function of the United States.

IX. Additional Information

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from
the internet by--
     Searching the Federal Document Management System (FDMS)
Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
     Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
http://www.fdsys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in
developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical
reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal Document
Management System Portal referenced previously.

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

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

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), 106(g), 1155, 40101,
40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709,
44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316,
46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, 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. In Sec.  91.1609, revise the section heading and paragraphs (b),
(c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.1609  Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 114--Prohibition
Against Certain Flights in the Damascus Flight Information Region (FIR)
(OSTT).

* * * * *
    (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 Damascus Flight
Information Region (FIR) (OSTT).
    (c) Permitted operations. This section does not prohibit persons
described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight
operations in the Damascus Flight Information Region (FIR) (OSTT),
provided that such flight operations are conducted 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 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 December 30,
2020. 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), on November 30,
2018.

Daniel K. Elwell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-26680 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10195-10198]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0081]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Chester River,
Chestertown, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local
regulations during the reenactment portion of the ``Chestertown Tea
Party Festival,'' a marine event to be held on the waters of the
Chester River, Chestertown, MD on May 29, 2010. These special local
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to
temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Chester River
during the event.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0081 using any one of the following methods:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore, MD; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking [USCG-2010-0081], indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0081'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0081'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

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

Background and Purpose

    On May 29, 2010, the Chestertown Tea Party Festival will sponsor a
reenactment in the Chester River at Chestertown, MD. The key component
of the event consists of the Schooner SULTANA departing from its berth
in Chestertown, transiting 200 yards to an anchorage location,
embarking and disembarking Tea Party actors by dinghy, and then
returning to its berth. Due to the need for vessel control during the
event, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the
event area to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and
other transiting vessels.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local
regulations on specified waters of the Chester River, Chestertown, MD.
The regulations will be in effect from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 29,
2010. The regulated area, approximately 350 yards in length and 150
yards in width, includes all waters of the Chester River within a line
connecting the following positions: latitude 39[deg]12'27'' N,
longitude 076[deg]03'46'' W; thence to latitude 39[deg]12'19'' N,
longitude 076[deg]03'53'' W; thence to latitude 39[deg]12'25'' N,
longitude 076[deg]03'41'' W; thence to latitude 39[deg]12'16'' N,
longitude 076[deg]03'48'' W; thence to the point of origin at latitude
39[deg]12'27'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'46'' W. The effect of this
proposed rule will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated
area during the event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain
in the regulated area. Spectator vessels will be allowed to view the
event from outside the regulated area, but may not block the navigable
channel. Other vessels intending to transit the Chester River will be
allowed to safely transit around the regulated area. These regulations
are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the
safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation will
prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Chester River during
the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to
the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the
extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime
community via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information
broadcasts, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose
the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety
deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around
the regulated area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected
portions of the Chester River during the event.
    Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion
of the Chester River at Chestertown, MD during the event, this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule
would be in effect for only a limited period. The regulated area is of
limited size. Vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the
regulated area. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime
advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Coast Guard Sector Baltimore,
MD. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed 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
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Though this proposed rule
would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications

of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment under paragraph 34(h) of
the Instruction. This proposed rule involves implementation of
regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 applicable to organized marine
events on the navigable waters of the United States that could
negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side
activities in the event area. The category of water activities includes
but is not limited to sailboat regattas, boat parades, power boat
racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary section, Sec.  100.35-T05-0081 to read as
follows:

Sec.  100.35-T05-0081  Special Local Regulations for Marine Events;
Chester River, Chestertown, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following locations are regulated areas:
All waters of the Chester River, within a line connecting the following
positions: latitude 39[deg]12'27'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'46'' W;
thence to latitude 39[deg]12'19'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'53'' W;
thence to latitude 39[deg]12'25'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'41'' W;
thence to latitude 39[deg]12'16'' N, longitude 076[deg]03'48'' W;
thence to the point of origin at latitude 39[deg]12'27'' N, longitude
076[deg]03'46'' W, located at Chestertown, Maryland. All coordinates
reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (c) Special local regulations: (1) Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or any
Official Patrol.
    (d) Enforcement period: This section will be enforced from 10 a.m.
until 5 p.m. on May 29, 2010.
    (e) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event
details.

    Dated: February 17, 2010.
Mark P. O'Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 2010-4647 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="07/07/2008 11:52:24 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>