[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30121-30122]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings # 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC23-85-000.
    Applicants: Boomtown Solar Energy LLC, BREC Holding Company, LLC,
Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Boomtown Solar Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/3/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1484-029; ER12-2381-015; ER13-1069-018; ER14-
1140-005.
    Applicants: Inspire Energy Holdings, LLC, MP2 Energy LLC, MP2
Energy NE LLC, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Shell Energy North
America (US), L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5577.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2354-012.
    Applicants: Midway-Sunset Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Midway-
Sunset Cogeneration Company.
    Filed Date: 5/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20230502-5278.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2434-012; ER10-2436-012; ER10-2467-012; ER17-
1666-009; ER18-1709-004; ER19-1635-003.
    Applicants: Hoosier Wind Project, LLC, Wapsipinicon Wind Project,
LLC, Fenton Power Partners I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Fenton Power Partners I,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5582.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2727-007; ER10-1451-009; ER10-1467-010; ER10-
1469-010; ER10-1473-009; ER10-1474-009; ER10-1478-011; ER10-2687-009;
ER10-2688-012; ER10-2689-012; ER10-2728-011; ER11-3907-003.
    Applicants: The Toledo Edison Company, Green Valley Hydro, LLC,
West Penn Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power
Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Metropolitan Edison Company,
Pennsylvania Power Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company, Ohio Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light, Allegheny
Energy Supply Company, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Allegheny
Energy Supply Company, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230428-5730.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1470-014; ER10-3026-012; ER16-1833-009.
    Applicants: Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC, Termoelectricia
U.S., LLC, Energia Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Energia
Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5579.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2376-005; ER10-2020-004.
    Applicants: PPL Renewable Energy, LLC, Energy Power Investment
Company, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Energy Power Investment
Company, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5581.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1534-013; ER10-1852-079; ER10-1951-055; ER11-
4462-078; ER17-838-053; ER18-1535-012; ER20-2012-008; ER22-1454-003.
    Applicants: LI Solar Generation, LLC, Orbit Bloom Energy, LLC,
Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC, NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC, NEPM
II, LLC, NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, Florida Power &
Light Company, East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of East Hampton Energy
Storage Center, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5580.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-59-004; ER10-1874-015; ER15-1952-013; ER16-
2520-005; ER17-318-005; ER18-97-003; ER19-8-005; ER19-9-009; ER20-57-
003; ER20-58-003; ER20-339-003; ER20-422-003.
    Applicants: FL Solar 1, LLC, Twiggs County Solar, LLC, FL Solar 4,
LLC, GA Solar 3, LLC, Mankato Energy Center II, LLC, Sweetwater Solar,
LLC, MS Solar 3, LLC, Three Peaks Power, LLC, Grand View PV Solar Two
LLC, Pavant Solar LLC, Mankato Energy Center, LLC, AZ Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of AZ Solar 1,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5576.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-59-005; ER10-1874-016; ER10-1946-017; ER10-
2201-004; ER10-2721-014; ER10-2861-012; ER12-1308-015; ER13-291-003;
ER13-1504-013; ER14-1468-014; ER14-2140-014; ER14-2141-014; ER14-2465-
016; ER14-2466-016; ER14-2939-013; ER15-632-015; ER15-634-015; ER15-
1471-013; ER15-1672-012; ER15-1952-014; ER15-2728-015; ER16-612-002;
ER16-711-011; ER16-915-007; ER16-2010-007; ER16-2520-006; ER16-2561-
007; ER17-318-006; ER18-97-004; ER19-8-006; ER19-9-010; ER19-2287-005;
ER19-2294-005; ER19-2305-005; ER20-57-004; ER20-58-004; ER20-339-004;
ER20-422-004.
    Applicants: FL Solar 1, LLC, Twiggs County Solar, LLC, FL Solar 4,
LLC, GA Solar 3, LLC, Valencia Power, LLC, Mesquite Power, LLC, Goal
Line L.P., Mankato Energy Center II, LLC, Sweetwater Solar, LLC, MS
Solar 3, LLC, Three Peaks Power, LLC, Sunflower Wind Project, LLC,
Grand View PV Solar Two LLC, Hancock Wind, LLC, Comanche Solar PV, LLC,
Pio Pico Energy Center, LLC, Greeley Energy Facility, LLC, Maricopa
West Solar PV, LLC, Pavant Solar LLC, Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC,
Blue Sky West, LLC, Cottonwood Solar, LLC, CID Solar, LLC, Imperial
Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2, LLC, RE Camelot LLC, RE Columbia Two
LLC, Selmer Farm, LLC, Mulberry Farm, LLC, KMC Thermo, LLC, SWG
Arapahoe, LLC, EnergyMark, LLC, Palouse Wind, LLC, Fountain Valley
Power, L.L.C., El Paso Electric Company, Marina Energy, LLC, Broad
River Energy LLC, Mankato Energy Center, LLC, AZ Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of AZ Solar 1,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5585.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1251-002; ER22-2141-002; ER22-2519-002.
    Applicants: Bellflower Solar 1, LLC, Sun Mountain Solar 1, LLC,
Bighorn Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Bighorn
Solar 1, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5578.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1549-004.
    Applicants: Sun Streams PVS, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Sun Streams
PVS, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230428-5729.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1982-006; ER18-882-018; ER18-2314-013; ER22-
2048-003; ER22-2706-004; ER22-2824-005.
    Applicants: Yellow Pine Solar, LLC, Eight Point Wind, LLC, Skipjack
Solar Center, LLC, Sholes Wind Energy, LLC, Elk City Renewables II,
LLC, Great Prairie Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Great Prairie Wind, LLC,
et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5584.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2046-002; ER10-1882-009; ER10-1894-010; ER10-
2563-007; ER12-164-023; ER18-2203-003; ER19-1402-002; ER20-2288-003.
    Applicants: Tatanka Ridge Wind, LLC, Coyote Ridge Wind, LLC, Upper
Michigan Energy Resources Corporation, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC,
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation,
Wisconsin River Power Company, Sapphire Sky Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Sapphire
Sky Wind Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5575.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2706-003.
    Applicants: Eight Point Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Eight Point Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5583.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1351-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2023-05-04_SA 3482 ATC-Wisconsin
Electric Power Sub 2nd Rev GIA (J878 J1316) to be effective 3/8/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/4/23.
    Accession Number: 20230504-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1373-001.
    Applicants: Hillcrest Solar I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Hillcrest Solar I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5574.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

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

    Dated: May 4, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09957 Filed 5-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 17474]
[DOCID:fr15ap09-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-901-000]

Sky River, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

April 8, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sky River, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 27, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-8552 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61686-61687]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0399; FRL-8232-1]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of Allen County 8-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone; Withdrawal of Direct Final
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the EPA is
withdrawing the August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51489), direct final rule
approving the State of Indiana's May 30, 2006, request to redesignate
the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area of Allen County, Indiana, to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; and for EPA approval of an Indiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a 14-year maintenance
plan for Allen County. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if
adverse comments were submitted by September 29, 2006, the rule would
be withdrawn and not take effect. On September 4, 2006, EPA received a
comment. EPA believes this comment is adverse and, therefore, EPA is
withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a
subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published
on August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51546). EPA

will not institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 71 FR 51489 on August 30,
2006 is withdrawn as of October 19, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, and
Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: October 6, 2006.
Gary Gulezian,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 40--[AMENDED]

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.777 and 81.315 published in
the Federal Register on August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51489) on pages 51489-
51500 is withdrawn as of October 19, 2006.

 [FR Doc. E6-17432 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

Subject:	Napropamide: Justification for Environmental Fate and Effects
studies from Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) not included in
the DCI.

From:		James Parker

		Reregistration Branch 1

	Special Review and Registration Division

Date:		January 29, 2008

The purpose of this memo is to publicize the Agency’s rationale for
not including specific ecological studies in the Napropamide Data
Call-In, which were previously required in the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) document.  By electing to provide this
information to the public, the Agency hopes to continue to support clear
and transparent decision making practices.

1.	850.1300 Freshwater invertebrate chronic toxicity - This study
requirement was fulfilled by an acceptable study (MRID No. 464787-04).

2.	850.1350 Estuarine/marine invertebrate chronic toxicity test - The
chronic freshwater invertebrate toxicity test was used to calculate a
chronic risk quotient (RQ) of 0.016, which is well below the
level-of-concern (LOC) of 1.  Thus, risk to estuarine/marine
invertebrates is unlikely.

3. 	850.1500 Fish Life Cycle Study - A supplemental, non-guideline
sub-chronic fish toxicity study resulted in a no-effect level more than
two orders of magnitude above the highest 60-day Estimated Environmental
Concentration (EEC).  Therefore the Agency does not anticipate that
napropamide exposure will lead to chronic risk to fish.

4. 	850.4400 Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test - A supplemental freshwater
algae study reports a NOEC of 5.05 ppm, which is much greater than the
highest acute EEC.  Hence, it appears unlikely that napropamide exposure
would lead to risk to aquatic plants (excluding endangered species).


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28002-28003]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-354-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on April 29, 2022, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046 filed
in the above referenced docket, a prior notice pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.208 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act, requesting authorization to
replace, in the existing right-of-way a total of approximately 2.95
miles of existing parallel pipelines, Bastrop Eunice, 36-1, BAE 30-1,
and BAE 26-1. In addition, the installation of a new 36-inch mainline
block valve on the existing BAE 36-1 and minor work at six existing
valve/metering facilities along the BAE system all located in
Evangeline Parish, Louisiana (Pine Prairie Pipeline Replacement Project
or Project).
    Texas Gas proposes to replace the pipelines due to population
increase and to maintain pipeline safety standards under the DOT design
and integrity requirements. Texas proposes to replace the pipelines
under authorities granted by its blanket certificate issued in Docket
No. CP82-407-000.\1\ Texas says that the replacements is necessary to
ensure compliance with pipeline safety regulation and to keep
communities near the facilities safe. The proposed replacement will
have no impact on Texas existing customers or affect its existing
storage operations. The estimated potential replacement cost for the
Project is approximately $19,100,000, all as more fully set forth in
the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Texas Gas Transmission Corp., 20 FERC ] 62,417 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Michael E. McMahon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Texas
Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800,
Houston, Texas 77046; by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
[email protected].
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\2\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: Complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Sec.  157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 5, 2022. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\3\ any person \4\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \4\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\5\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is July 5, 2022. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \6\ and the regulations under the NGA \7\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is July 5, 2022. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding

the proceeding, as well as your interest in the proceeding. For an
individual, this could include your status as a landowner, ratepayer,
resident of an impacted community, or recreationist. You do not need to
have property directly impacted by the project in order to intervene.
For more information about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC
website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \7\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before July 5, 2022. The filing of a comment alone will not serve
to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you
must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP22-354-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP22-354-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Michael E.
McMahon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston,
Texas 77046; by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
[email protected] . Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: May 4, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09998 Filed 5-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 85950]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28742]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Petition IV-2015-3; FRL-9955-79-Region 4]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Tennessee Valley Authority--Bull Run
(Anderson County, Tennessee)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to state operating
permit.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated November 10,
2016, granting petition to object to Clean Air Act (CAA) title V
operating permit issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Bull Run
facility located in Clinton, Anderson County, Tennessee. This Order
constitutes a final action on the petition submitted by Sierra Club and
Environmental Integrity Project (Petitioners) and received by EPA on
September 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Order, the petition, and all pertinent
information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA
Region 4; Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; 61 Forsyth
Street SW.; Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Order is also available
electronically at the following address: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/tva_bull_run_order_granting_petition_to_object_to_permit_.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section,
EPA Region 4, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating
permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR
70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to
object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the
expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its
own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the
permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public
comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner
demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the
comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
    Petitioners submitted a petition regarding the aforementioned TVA
Bull Run facility, requesting that EPA object to the CAA title V
operating permit (#01-0009/567519). Petitioners alleged that the permit
was not consistent with the CAA because it lacks sufficient monitoring
to assure compliance with the opacity limit established pursuant to
Tennessee Comprehensive Rules & Regulations 1200-03-05-.01.
    On November 10, 2016, the Administrator issued an Order granting
the petition. The Order explains EPA's rationale for granting the
petition.

    Dated: November 18, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-28742 Filed 11-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65709-65716]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0091]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency may collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval,
Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of
information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously
approved collections. This document describes a collection of
information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
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 DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Yvonne Clarke, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must request public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: Vehicle Performance Guidance.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    OMB Clearance Number: None.
    Form Number: NHTSA Form 1157.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: On September 20, 2016,
the Department of Transportation published the policy \1\ document
titled Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. Recognizing the potential
that highly automated vehicles (HAVs) have to enhance safety and
mobility, this document sets out an approach to enable the safe
deployment of L2 and HAV systems. An HAV system is defined as one that
corresponds to Conditional (Level 3), High (Level 4), and Full (Level
5) Automation, as defined in SAE J3016. \2\ HAV systems rely on the
automation system (not on a human driver) to monitor the driving
environment for at least certain aspects of the driving task. An L2
system, also described in SAE J3016, is different because the human
driver is never relieved of the responsibility to monitor the driving
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Conformance to the guidance in Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy is voluntary. See Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act, Public Law 114-94, 24406 (2015) (``No guidelines issued by the
Secretary with respect to motor vehicle safety shall confer any
rights on any person, State, or locality, nor shall operate to bind
the Secretary or any person to the approach recommended in such
guidelines'').
    \2\ For more information about SAE J3016, see http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there is a clear technical distinction between HAV systems
and lower levels of automation (L2 and below) based on whether the
automated system relies on the human driver when engaged and in
operation, the Guidance suggests that L2 and HAV manufacturers apply
elements of this Guidance during product development, testing, and
deployment. With a few exceptions detailed in the tables below, Federal
Automated Vehicles Policy applies equally to HAV and L2 systems. NHTSA
seeks comment on its burden estimates regarding HAV and L2 systems and
how those burdens might differ.
    The speed with which increasingly complex L2 and HAV systems are
evolving challenges DOT and NHTSA to take approaches that ensure these
technologies are safely introduced, provide safety benefits today, and
achieve their full safety potential in the future.
    Consistent with its statutory purpose to reduce traffic accidents
and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents,\3\ NHTSA
seeks to collect from, and recommend the recordkeeping and disclosure
of information by vehicle manufacturers and other entities as described
in Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. Specifically, NHTSA's
recommendations in the policy section titled ``Vehicle Performance
Guidance for Automated Vehicles'' (hereafter referred to as
``Guidance'') are the subject of this voluntary information collection
request. This Guidance outlines recommended best practices, many of
which should be commonplace in the industry, for the safe pre-
deployment design, development, and testing of HAV and L2 systems prior
to commercial sale or operation on public roads. Further, the Guidance
identifies key areas to be addressed by manufacturers and other
entities prior to testing or deploying HAV or L2 systems on public
roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 U.S.C.Sec.  30101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist NHTSA and the public in evaluating how safety is being
addressed by manufacturers and other entities developing and testing
HAV and L2 systems, NHTSA is recommending the following documentation,
recordkeeping, and disclosures that aid in that mission. The burden
estimates contained in this notice are based on the Agency's present
understanding of the HAV and L2 systems market. NHTSA seeks comment on
the burden estimates in this notice in whole or in part.

(1) HAV and L2 Safety Assessments

    NHTSA will request that HAV and L2 manufacturers and other entities
voluntarily submit ``Safety Assessments'' to NHTSA's Office of the
Chief Counsel for each HAV system and each SAE J3016 L2 system deployed
on a vehicle. NHTSA anticipates that the majority of manufacturers and
other entities will submit these Assessments digitally, but seeks
comment on whether some manufacturers would prefer to mail in hard
copies. These Assessments are the only collections in this notice that
NHTSA anticipates manufacturers will submit to the Agency regularly.\4\
As explained in more detail below, NHTSA has calculated this burden to
be about 760 hours per Assessment based on existing industry practices
and similar information collection requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The other collections of information discussed in this
notice are recordkeeping and/or disclosure recommendations that
NHTSA might request, however, NHTSA plans on requesting information
pertaining to those collections on a case-by-case basis. Examples
include when information in the Safety Assessment is not clear, when
testing by the Agency or other suggests conflicting information than
what is contained in the Safety Assessment, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Safety Assessment would summarize how the manufacturer or other
entity has addressed the provisions of this Guidance at the time they
intend their product to be ready for operational testing and prior to
deployment. The Safety Assessment would assist NHTSA, and the public,
in evaluating how safety is being addressed by manufacturers and other
entities developing and testing L2 and HAV systems. The Safety
Assessment would cover the following areas:

 Data Recording and Sharing
 Privacy
 System Safety
 Vehicle Cybersecurity
 Human Machine Interface
 Crashworthiness
 Consumer Education and Training
 Registration and Certification
 Post-Crash Behavior
 Federal, State and Local Laws
 Ethical Considerations
 Operational Design Domain
 Object and Event Detection and Response
 Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition)
 Validation Methods

    These areas are fully described in the Guidance section (section I)
of Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. For each area, the Safety
Assessment should include an acknowledgement that indicates one of
three options:
 Meets this guidance area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Does not meet this guidance area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 This guidance area is not applicable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next to the checked line item, respondents would include the name,
title, and signature of an authorized company official and the date the
acknowledgement was made. Respondents would repeat this for each area
covered in the Safety Assessment.
    Once this collection is approved, for L2 and HAV systems already
being tested and deployed, NHTSA would expect that manufacturers and
other entities will provide a Safety Assessment, understanding that
manufacturers and entities may wish to supplement their submissions
over time. For future L2 or HAV systems, NHTSA would expect
manufacturers and other entities to provide the relevant Assessment(s)
to NHTSA at least four months before active public road testing begins
on a new L2 or HAV system. As explained in greater detail in Federal
Automated Vehicles Policy, ``a new L2 or HAV system'' is intended to
include the introduction of a new capability or function, but not an
incremental software and/or hardware update. For example, a vehicle
might have the capability to function with no driver input in congested
traffic conditions below 30 mph. If the manufacturer updates the
software (or hardware) in the vehicle expanding that automated
functionality to higher speed highways, the Guidance would consider
that upgrade to constitute a new L2 or HAV system.

(2) Data Recording

    As part of the Guidance, NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and
other entities will have a documented process for testing, validation,
and collection of event, incident, and crash data, for the purposes of
recording the occurrence of malfunctions, degradations, or failures in
a way that can be used to establish the cause of any such issues. NHTSA
recommends in its Guidance that manufacturers collect data both for
testing and for operational (including for event reconstruction)
purposes. The Agency suggests that manufacturers and other entities
retain this information for a period of five years.
    For crash reconstruction purposes (including during testing), NHTSA
recommends this data be stored, maintained, and readily available for
retrieval by the entity itself and, if requested, by NHTSA. The
Guidance recommends that manufacturers and other entities collect data
associated with events involving: (1) Fatalities and personal injuries;
or (2) damage to the extent that any motor vehicle involved cannot be
driven under its own power in the customary manner, without further
damage or hazard to itself, other traffic elements, or the roadway, and
therefore requires towing. Vehicles should record, at a minimum, all
information relevant to the event and the performance of the system, so
that the circumstances of the event can be reconstructed. This data
should also contain information relating to the status of the L2 or HAV
system and whether the HAV system or the human driver was in control of
the vehicle at the time. Manufacturers or other entities should have
the technical and legal capability to share the relevant recorded
information.
    In addition, to assist industry and NHTSA to develop new safety
metrics, the Guidance recommends that manufacturers and other entities
should collect, store, and analyze data regarding positive outcomes, in
addition to the type of reporting conditions listed above (event,
incident, and crash data). Positive outcomes are events in which the L2
or HAV system correctly detects a safety-relevant situation, and the
system successfully avoids an incident (e.g., ``near misses'' and edge
cases). Such data includes safety-related events such as near-misses
between HAVs and other vehicles or road users (e.g., pedestrians and
bicyclists). There is value in collecting data (and making it available
during full operational use) that captures events in which the
automated function correctly detects and identifies an unsafe maneuver
initiated by another road user (e.g., another motor vehicle or
pedestrian), and executes an appropriate response that successfully
avoids an event, incident, or crash.

(3) Data Sharing

    L2 and HAV systems have the potential to use data sharing to
increase safety benefits. Thus, the Guidance recommends that each
manufacturer or other entity should develop a plan for sharing its
event reconstruction and other relevant data with other manufacturers
and other entities. Sharing such data could help to accelerate
knowledge and understanding of L2 and HAV system performance, and could
be used to enhance the safety of L2 or HAV systems and to establish
consumer confidence in L2 and HAV technologies. Generally, data shared
with third parties should be de-identified (i.e., stripped of elements
that make the data directly or reasonably linkable to a specific L2 or
HAV system owner or user). Manufacturers and other entities should take
steps to ensure that any data shared

is done in accordance with privacy and security agreements and notices
applicable to the vehicle (which typically permit sharing of de-
identified data) or with owner/user consent.

(4) Consumer Education and Training

    To ensure that drivers of vehicles equipped with L2 or HAV systems
can safely use them as part of the day-to-day driving experience,
proper education and training is imperative to ensure safe deployment
and operation of automated vehicles. Therefore, the Guidance recommends
that manufacturers and other entities develop, document, and maintain
employee, dealer, distributor, and consumer education and training
programs to address the anticipated differences in the use and
operation of L2-equipped vehicles and HAVs from those of the
conventional vehicles. Such programs should be designed to provide the
target users with the necessary level of understanding to use these
complex technologies properly, efficiently, and in the safest manner
possible.
    Consumer education should describe and explain topics such as an L2
or HAV system's intended use, operational parameters, system
capabilities and limitations, and engagement/disengagement methods to
transfer control between the driver and the L2 or HAV system. Further,
consumer education should describe and explain what is meant by any
displays and messaging presented by the L2 or HAV system's human-
machine interface (HMI), emergency fallback scenarios in cases where
the HAV system unexpectedly disengages, operational boundary
responsibilities of the human driver, and potential mechanisms that
could change an L2 or HAV system's behavior in service.
    As part of their education and training programs, the Guidance
recommends that L2 or HAV manufacturers, dealers, and distributers
should consider including an on-road or on-track hands-on experience
demonstrating L2 or HAV system operations and HMI functions prior to
release to consumers. Other innovative approaches (e.g., virtual
reality) should be considered, tested, and employed as well. These
programs should be continually evaluated for their effectiveness and
updated on a routine basis, incorporating feedback from dealers,
customers, and other data sources. NHTSA may request information on a
manufacturer or other entities' consumer education to review training
materials prepared by manufacturers and other entities for the purpose
of evaluating effectiveness. NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and
other entities retain this information for a period of five years.

(5) Certification

    NHTSA anticipates that the capabilities of L2 or HAV systems on a
vehicle may change such that the corresponding level of automation may
change over the vehicle's lifecycle as a result of software updates. As
more L2-equipped vehicles and HAVs are tested and sold commercially to
be used on public roadways, older vehicles also may be modified to
provide similar functionality to new vehicles. As new L2 and HAV
systems are introduced to the market, manufacturers may choose to
modify a vehicle's current level of automation to more advanced levels,
even if the hardware was produced years previously. The Guidance
recommends that manufacturers provide on-vehicle means to readily
communicate concise information regarding the key capabilities of their
L2 or HAV system(s) to vehicle occupants (e.g. semi-permanent labeling
to the vehicle, in the operator's manual, or through the driver-vehicle
interface).

(6) Systems Safety Practices

    For the purpose of facilitating the design of L2 and HAV systems
that are free of unreasonable safety risks, the Guidance recommends
that manufacturers and other entities follow a robust design and
validation process based on a systems-engineering approach and be fully
documented. This process should encompass designing HAV systems such
that the vehicle will be placed in a safe state even when there are
electrical, electronic, or mechanical malfunctions or software errors.
    The overall process should adopt and follow industry standards,
such as those provided by the International Standards Organization
(ISO) and SAE International, and collectively cover the entire design
domain of the vehicle. Manufacturers and other entities should also
follow guidance, best practices, and design principles available from
other industries such as aviation, space, and the military (e.g., the
U.S. Department of Defense standard practice on system safety), to the
extent they are relevant and applicable.
    The process should include a hazard analysis and safety risk
assessment step for the L2 or HAV system, the overall vehicle design
into which it is being integrated, and when applicable, the broader
transportation ecosystem. The process should describe design
redundancies and safety strategies for handling cases of L2 or HAV
system malfunctions.
    All design decisions should be tested, validated, and verified as
individual subsystems and as part of the entire vehicle architecture.
The entire process should be fully documented and all actions, changes,
design choices, analyses, associated testing and data should be fully
traceable.
    Documentation of the system safety practices is intended primarily
to assist manufacturers and other entities involved in designing L2 or
HAV systems in managing this complex aspect of L2 or HAV safety
engineering. NHTSA may request this information in the future as well,
to review system safety practices for the purpose of evaluating the
robustness of manufacturers' and other entities' overall approach to
designing functionally safe (fail safe) HAV systems. NHTSA suggests
that manufacturers and other entities retain this information for a
period of five years.

(7) Additional Data Collection Request Topics

    In addition to the individually defined collection areas described
above, the Guidance suggests that NHTSA may request more detailed
information for matters that manufacturers and other entities already
gather. Therefore, the Guidance encourages manufacturers and other
entities to ensure that they retain data pertaining to these topics.
They include data regarding: Vehicle cybersecurity; HMI;
crashworthiness (occupant protection and compatibility); post-crash
behavior; Federal, State, and local laws, operational design domain;
object event detection and response; and fall back (minimal risk
condition).
    These additional areas are important from the standpoint of
ensuring L2 and HAV systems that are free from unreasonable safety
risks. In the future, this data could be used to evaluate processes for
testing and validating. For these additional areas, NHTSA expects that
there would be minimal additional burden placed on manufacturers and
other entities because these are all areas that the Agency expects
would normally be part of the design, testing, and validation process
of a new L2 or HAV system. NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and other
entities retain this information for a period of five years. More
detailed descriptions of all of these areas can be found in Federal
Automated Vehicles Policy.
    Estimated Burden for this Collection: We estimate the following
collection burden on the public. The numbers below are based on
estimates that NHTSA has generated, and the agency

seeks comment on the burden calculations below.

HAV and L2 Safety Assessments

    There are currently 15 manufacturers that have registered with the
State of California as licensed entities capable of testing automated
systems. NHTSA expects that this number will increase after the
publication of Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, potentially doubling
to 30 manufacturers and other entities within six months. As automated
vehicle systems continue to develop, NHTSA expects either new
manufacturers or entities to enter the market, or existing
manufacturers or entities to progress to a point where they are
introducing HAV systems. For purposes of estimating the burden of this
collection, NHTSA estimates there will be a total of 45 respondents by
the end of the three years covered by this information collection
request. Likewise, NHTSA estimates that a similar number of
manufacturers and other entities will submit L2 Safety Assessments,
although the agency notes that the 45 respondents for each assessment
may not be identical, since some companies may be developing L3/L4
vehicles but not L2 vehicles, and vice versa.
    The Agency expects much of the burden of submitting these
Assessments to be a part of conducting good and safe engineering
practices. It therefore believes that manufacturers and other entities
will have access to all of the information needed to craft these
Assessments already documented, and that the overall conformance burden
will be the time needed to collate and review answers sourced from pre-
existing documentation. The summary table below highlights the
estimated burden in hours for entities seeking to submit Safety
Assessments by category:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Area                                    Hours            HAV               L2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Overall Summary.......................................              80         [check]          [check]
Data Recording and Sharing....................................              80         [check]          [check]
Privacy.......................................................              40         [check]          [check]
System Safety.................................................              20         [check]          [check]
Vehicle Cybersecurity.........................................              20         [check]          [check]
Human Machine Interface.......................................              20         [check]          [check]
Crashworthiness...............................................              20         [check]          [check]
Consumer Education and Training...............................              40         [check]          [check]
Registration and Certification................................              40         [check]          [check]
Post-Crash Behavior...........................................              20         [check]          [check]
Federal, State and Local Laws.................................              80         [check]          [check]
Ethical Consideration.........................................              80         [check]          [check]
Operational Design Domain.....................................              20         [check]
Object and Event Detection and Response.......................              40         [check]
Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition)............................              80         [check]
Validation methods............................................              80         [check]          [check]
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ..............             760              620
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Industry Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Safety assessments                   HAV             L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents...................              45              45
Time per Response (hours)...............             760             620
Frequency of Collection (for each new                  1               1
 HAV/L2 system).........................
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)...          34,200          27,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the industry burden, because NHTSA will be
collecting these Assessments, there is a government burden that will be
incurred by the Agency. NHTSA expects that it will take three employees
an hour each to fully process, catalogue, store each submission for a
total of three burden hours. It will take an hour for a single employee
to craft an acknowledgement of receipt to both the submitter and the
public. The Agency also expects that 5 engineers will review these
Assessments for technical completeness, spending four hours each, for a
total of 20 hrs. This is expected to occur every time a Safety
Assessment is received.

                         Government Cost Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              HAV and L2 Safety assessments                  Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Safety Assessments............................              90
Time per Response (hours)...............................              24
Frequency of Collection (for each new HAV/L2 system)....               1
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)...................           2,160
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Sharing and Recording

    In conforming to this Guidance, manufacturers and other entities
may see an increased burden to document their procedures. The Agency
anticipates that the 45 manufacturers and other entities will have to
spend an increased amount of time documenting their crash recorders,
positive outcomes, event triggers/schema, data management, their data
sharing plan, and data privacy. If these entities have already
responded to the Safety Assessment discussed previously, the

core of the information likely will already be documented. Below are
estimates of the additional hourly burden NHTSA expects.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Area                                    Hours            HAV               L2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Recorder................................................              40         [check]          [check]
Positive Outcomes.............................................              40         [check]          [check]
Event Triggers, Schema........................................              40         [check]          [check]
Data Privacy..................................................              40         [check]          [check]
Data Management...............................................              40         [check]          [check]
Data Sharing Plan.............................................              40         [check]          [check]
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................             240             240              240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Data Recording and Sharing for Purposes of Crash Reconstruction and
                        General Knowledge Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                HAV             L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Number of Respondents.........              45              45
Estimated increased documentation burden             240             240
 (hours)................................
Frequency of Collection (for each new                  1               1
 system)................................
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)...          10,800          10,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Systems Safety Practices

    As with the prior discussions, manufacturers and other entities may
choose to document their system safety practices in response to the
Guidance. It is anticipated that up to 45 companies may choose to
document their efforts in response to the NHTSA Guidance and that they
will incur corresponding costs for each new L2 or HAV system in the
field. NHTSA estimates this will happen about once per year. If
manufacturers and other entities have already responded to a Safety
Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will
already be documented. The following table documents the additional
estimated burden.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Area                                    Hours            HAV               L2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Standards Followed...................................              10         [check]          [check]
Best Practices, Design, and Guidance Followed.................              10         [check]
Hazard Analysis...............................................              40         [check]          [check]
Safety Risk Assessment........................................              40         [check]          [check]
Redundancies..................................................              20         [check]          [check]
Software Development, Verification, and Validation............              40         [check]          [check]
System Testing and Traceability...............................              40         [check]          [check]
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ..............             200              200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Company Documentation for Recommended System Safety Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                HAV             L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents...................              45              45
Estimated increased documentation burden             200             200
 (hours)................................
Frequency of Collection.................               1               1
Total Estimated Annual Burden...........           9,000           9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer Education and Training

    As previously stated, NHTSA expects that manufacturers will develop
documentation to support a claim or assertion that they are following
the Guidance. NHTSA may request a subset of this documentation in some
instances. However, the burden estimated here reflects additional time
the manufacturers and other entities may take, outside of normal
business practices, to document and store information specifically
pertaining to their efforts to educate and train their customers and
users.
    NHTSA anticipates that up to 45 companies may choose to document
their efforts as part of the NHTSA Guidance. In the table below are
estimates for the burden, in hours, for the task of documenting
consumer education and training efforts, over and above normal business
practices. This is currently estimated to occur about once per year. If
manufacturers and other entities have already responded in a Safety
Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will
already be documented, reducing the relative burden. It is also
expected that some of the entities may not directly interact with
consumers, in which case their burden will be lower.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Area                                    Hours            HAV               L2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Intent.................................................               5         [check]          [check]
Operational Parameters........................................              10         [check]          [check]

System Capabilities...........................................              10         [check]          [check]
Engagement/Disengagement......................................              20         [check]          [check]
HMI...........................................................              20         [check]          [check]
Fallback......................................................              20         [check]
Driver Responsibilities.......................................              10         [check]          [check]
Changes in system performance in Service......................              10         [check]          [check]
On-Road Hands On Training.....................................               5         [check]          [check]
On-Track Hands On Training....................................               5         [check]          [check]
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ..............             115               95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Consumer Education and Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                HAV             L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of expected companies............              45              45
Estimated increased documentation burden             115              95
 (hours)................................
Frequency of Collection.................               1               1
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)...           5,175           4,275
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Areas

    NHTSA anticipates that up to 45 companies may choose to document
their efforts as part of the NHTSA Guidance. In the table below are
estimates for the burden, in hours, for the task of documenting
consumer education and training efforts, over and above normal business
practices. This is currently estimated to occur about once per year. If
manufacturers and other entities have already responded in a Safety
Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will
already be documented, reducing the relative burden. It is also
expected that some of the entities may not directly interact with
consumers, in which case their burden will be lower.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Area                                    Hours            HAV               L2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Cybersecurity.........................................              60         [check]          [check]
Human Machine Interface.......................................              80         [check]          [check]
Crashworthiness...............................................              20         [check]          [check]
Post-crash Behavior...........................................              40         [check]          [check]
Federal, State, and Local Laws................................              20         [check]          [check]
Operational Design Domain.....................................              20         [check]
Object Event Detection and Response...........................              20         [check]
Fall Back.....................................................              60         [check]
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ..............             320              220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Additional Areas
 [Cybersecurity, HMI, crashworthiness, post-crash, Fed/State/local laws,
                          ODD, OEDR, fallback]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                HAV             L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents...................              45              45
Estimated increased documentation burden             320             220
 (hours)................................
Frequency of Collection.................               1               1
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)...          14,400           9,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification

    Manufacturers and other entities that produce vehicles may choose
to conform to the Guidance's recommendation regarding certification,
and thus may incur an additional documentation burden over and above
normal documentation retention practices. Secondarily, some entities
may choose to implement a physical label, thereby incurring additional
costs.
    Not all of the companies that respond to the Safety Assessment may
produce, alter, or modify vehicles in such a way that they would need
extra labeling (e.g. tier 1 suppliers that do not offer aftermarket
upgrades), Therefore it is expected that only 30 companies could choose
to implement registration and certification procedures for new L2 or
HAV systems in the field. The estimated burden is expected to occur
once a year. The table below documents the additional estimated burden
in terms of hours

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Area                                 Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifying Information.................................              10
Description of L2 or HAV System.........................              10
                                                         ---------------

    Total...............................................              20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                HAV             L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Number of Respondents.........              30             N/A
Estimated increased documentation burden              20             N/A
 (hours)................................
Frequency of Collection.................               1             N/A
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)...             600             N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, some entities may choose to implement a
physical label. From previous documentation for Part 567 labels,\5\ the
cost of the physical label to approximately $1 per label. This takes
into account 3 minutes to install the label along with the actual cost
of the label. For the smaller fleets of HAVs, it is expected that this
number will be more expensive per vehicle. NHTSA estimates that fleets
will not exceed approximately 300 vehicles during the lifespan of the
current ICR, and that the cost of labeling, including cost to design,
print, and affix labels to be approximately $10 per vehicle. For 30
fleets of 300 cars each, this represents a cost burden of $90,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the supporting statement titled 2127-
00510_Supporting_Statement_2014_CSv2.doc located at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201501-2127-001
(retrieved September 7, 2016)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                HAV               L2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Estimated Burden Hours per Year.......................................          74,175           61,875
                                                                               ---------------------------------
Total Estimated Burden Hours per Year.........................................               136,050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued on: September 20, 2016.
Nathaniel Beuse
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2016-23013 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67884-67886]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0900; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-80]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS)
Routes; Hawaiian Islands

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish four United States Area
Navigation (RNAV) ATS routes (T-340, T-342, T-344, and T-346) in the
Hawaiian Islands. The proposed RNAV ATS routes will facilitate the
movement of aircraft among the Hawaiian Islands and will promote
operational efficiencies to current and proposed RNAV Standard
Instrument Departures (SID) and RNAV Standard Terminal Arrival Routes
(STAR), which will enhance the capacity for Hawaiian airports.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-0900; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-80 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Ready, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to support
the flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-
2019-0900; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-80) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-0900; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-80.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    The T-routes proposed in this NPRM were originally requested by the
General Aviation Council of Hawaii and later supported by other
national and local aviation user groups. The FAA supported the creation
of the routes primarily for the purposes of supporting our efforts to
establish Operational Contingency Plans (OCP) \1\ for the

facility. A worst-case scenario where Honolulu Control Facility does
not have surveillance and communications capability, the routes allow
Oakland Center the ability to provide procedural separation services to
users in Hawaii; primarily Medevac-type flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Operational Contingency Plans (OCP) and supporting
procedures that provide continuity are pre-planned actions to
respond to events that affect the capability of facilities to
provide operational ATC services. OCP provide guidance during
contingency operations and establish continuity until normal
services can be fully restored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the four routes will provide connectivity to RNAV
SIDs and STARs in the Hawaiian Islands. The routes take advantage of
NextGen RNAV capabilities providing an enhanced level of safety and
system user benefits. These routes support OCP requirements, and to the
extent possible, incorporated decisions made by a full work group made
up of industry partners, air traffic control, flight standards, state
aeronautics, and other user groups. These routes will be repeatable and
easy to file and fly, providing seamless routes between island
airports.
    The proposed new T-routes would support the strategy to transition
the National Airspace System (NAS) from a ground-based navigation and
radar based system to a satellite-based performance based network
system. The proposed T-routes will facilitate the movement of aircraft
to, from, and through the Hawaiian Islands. Taking advantage of the
capabilities of the advanced flight management systems in modern
aircraft, T-routes would serve to reduce air traffic control sector
complexity, increase NAS capacity, reduce pilot-to-air traffic
controller communications, and allow aircraft to be cleared to their
cruising altitude and flight planned route more expeditiously.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish United States four RNAV ATS
routes T-340, T-342, T-344, and T-346 in the Hawaiian Islands. Full
route descriptions are in ``The Proposed Amendment'' section of this
notice.
    The proposed new ATS routes are as follows:
    T-340: T-340 would extend between the NORBY, HI, FIX to the HILO,
HI, VORTAC (ITO). T-340 would provide for a route to the north of the
island of Maui avoiding turbulence from strong trade winds.
Additionally, T-340 would provide for an alternative weather avoidance
route between Oahu and the Big Island.
    T-342: T-342 would extend between the KUHIO, HI, WP to the KONA,
HI, VORTAC (KOA). T-342 would provide for a route to the north of the
island of Molokai and then turn south to KOA VORTAC. This route will
provide for weather avoidance.
    T-344: T-344 would extend between the NAPUA, HI, FIX to the KONA,
HI, VORTAC (KOA). T-344 would provide a route along the south side of
the Hawaiian Island chain. Additionally, this offshore route provides a
more direct routing from the island of Kauai to the Big Island.
    T-346: T-346 would extend between the LIHUA, HI, VORTAC (LIH) to
the PAIKO, HI, WP. T-346 would provide a route from the island of Kauai
to the Big Island and connect to T-340. Additionally, this route will
support single engine aircraft needing to stay within gliding distance
to the shoreline.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The United States Area Navigation Routes listed in this document will
be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8,
2019, and effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011--United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-340 NORBY, HI to HILO, HI (ITO) [New]

NORBY, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 21[deg]09'18.74'' N, long. 157[deg]31'21.71'' W)
HLENA, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 21[deg]02'18.48'' N, long. 157[deg]14'53.85'' W)
AARES, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 20[deg]59'55.00'' N, long. 157[deg]05'42.00'' W)
CHAIN, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 20[deg]58'22.78'' N, long. 156[deg]55'32.74'' W)
WYLUA, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 21[deg]05'42.50'' N, long. 156[deg]31'38.18'' W)
BARBY, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 20[deg]51'39.55'' N, long. 155[deg]58'47.44'' W)
LONOH, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 20[deg]21'58.13'' N, long. 155[deg]41'40.54'' W)
WAPIO, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 20[deg]11'16.63'' N, long. 155[deg]35'33.58'' W)
VELLA, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 20[deg]07'14.35'' N, long. 155[deg]20'53.98'' W)
MALOA, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 20[deg]03'31.55'' N, long. 155[deg]15'10.50'' W)
ARBOR, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 19[deg]58'51.61'' N, long. 155[deg]07'59.70'' W)
Hilo, HI (ITO)                   VORTAC             (Lat. 19[deg]43'16.86'' N, long. 155[deg]00'39.44'' W)

T-342 KUHIO, HI to KONA, HI [New]

KUHIO, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 21[deg]15'18.66'' N, long. 157[deg]49'54.01'' W)
Koko Head, HI (CKH)              VORTAC             (Lat. 21[deg]15'54.40'' N, long. 157[deg]42'10.73'' W)
ALAEY, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 21[deg]15'17.58'' N, long. 157[deg]27'49.56'' W)
PLUMB, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 21[deg]12'42.30'' N, long. 156[deg]36'05.35'' W)
WYLUA, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 21[deg]05'42.50'' N, long. 156[deg]31'38.18'' W)
Maui, HI (OGG)                   VORTAC             (Lat. 20[deg]54'23.30'' N, long. 156[deg]25'15.42'' W)
MAKEN, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 20[deg]34'44.22'' N, long. 156[deg]25'10.66'' W)
TAMMI, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 20[deg]05'33.56'' N, long. 156[deg]02'00.51'' W)
KONA, HI (KOA)                   VORTAC             (Lat. 19[deg]43'02.06'' N, long. 156[deg]02'41.71'' W)

T-344 NAPUA, HI to KONA, HI (KOA) [New]

NAPUA, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 21[deg]44'10.93'' N, long. 159[deg]14'38.56'' W)
KEOLA, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 21[deg]17'53.24'' N, long. 158[deg]29'25.89'' W)
GECKO, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 21[deg]11'32.10'' N, long. 158[deg]18'35.21'' W)
JULLE, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 20[deg]57'35.78'' N, long. 157[deg]34'35.29'' W)
ZUKAH, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 20[deg]15'21.03'' N, long. 156[deg]15'26.08'' W)
Kona, HI (KOA)                   VORTAC             (Lat. 19[deg]43'02.06'' N, long. 156[deg]02'41.71'' W)

T-346 LIHUE, HI to PAIKO, HI [New]

Lihue, HI (LIH)                  VORTAC             (Lat. 21[deg]57'55.00'' N, long. 159[deg]20'17.20'' W)
KOLEA, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 21[deg]31'15.28'' N, long. 158[deg]20'37.80'' W)
SHIGI, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 21[deg]18'15.11'' N, long. 158[deg]10'17.41'' W)
KUHIO, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 21[deg]15'18.66'' N, long. 157[deg]49'54.01'' W)
NORBY, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 21[deg]09'18.74'' N, long. 157[deg]31'21.71'' W)
MAKEN, HI                        FIX                (Lat. 20[deg]34'44.22'' N, long. 156[deg]25'10.66'' W)
NOWRA, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 20[deg]28'31.23'' N, long. 156[deg]09'17.08'' W)
PAIKO, HI                        WP                 (Lat. 20[deg]16'22.29'' N, long. 155[deg]38'27.80'' W)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2019.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-26604 Filed 12-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P