[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36496-36498]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0559; Airspace Docket No. 14-ACE-6]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Springfield MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Springfield, MO. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Downtown Airport.
The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National
Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2015.

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 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2014-0559/Airspace Docket No. 14-
ACE-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace at Downtown Airport Springfield,
MO.

Comments Invited

    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 and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0559/
Airspace Docket No. 14-ACE-6.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/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 Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.0-mile radius of Downtown
Airport, Springfield, MO, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures at the airport. Controlled airspace is needed for
the safety and management of IFR operations.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

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 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 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 1050.1E, ``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 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Springfield, MO [New]

    Downtown Airport, MO
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'22'' N., long. 093[deg]14'54.0'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.0-mile radius of Downtown Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 17, 2015.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-15528 Filed 6-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78252-78256]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0184]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Experimental Study of
Patient Information Prototypes

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-new and
title ``Experimental Study of Patient Information Prototypes.'' Also
include

the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Experimental Study of Patient Information Prototypes--(OMB Control
Number 0910-New)

    In order to make informed decisions about health care and to use
their medications correctly, consumers need easy access to up-to-date
and accurate information about the risks, benefits and safe use of
their prescription drugs. Consumers currently receive multiple pieces
of paper with their prescription drugs from the pharmacy, containing
information that is developed and distributed through various sources.
Written prescription drug information is provided through a voluntary
effort (Consumer Medication Information) \1\ as well as through FDA
mandated use of Medication Guides \2\ and Patient Package Inserts
(PPI).\3\ Patients describe a wide range of experiences and varying
degrees of satisfaction with information currently provided at the time
medicines are received at the pharmacy. In some cases, the written
documents are difficult to read and understand, duplicative and
overlapping, incomplete or contradictory. FDA has held multiple public
meetings to solicit feedback on providing balanced, comprehensive, and
up-to-date prescription drug information to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 104-180, August 6, 1996, Title VI, Effective
Medication Guides.
    \2\ Part 208 (21 CFR part 208).
    \3\ 21 CFR 310.501 and 310.515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1968, FDA regulations have required that PPIs written
specifically for patients be distributed when certain prescription
drugs or classes of prescription drugs are dispensed. PPIs are required
for estrogens and oral contraceptives, are considered part of the
product labeling, and are to be dispensed to the patient with the
product. In the 1970s, FDA began evaluating the general usefulness of
patient labeling for prescription drugs resulting in a series of
regulatory steps to help ensure the availability of useful written
consumer information. Other PPIs are submitted to FDA voluntarily by
manufacturers and approved by FDA, but their distribution is not
mandated by regulation. In the Federal Register of July 6, 1979 (44 FR
40016), FDA proposed regulations that would have required written
patient information for all prescription drugs, and in the Federal
Register of September 12, 1980 (45 FR 60754), FDA finalized those
regulations. In the Federal Register of September 7, 1982 (47 FR
39147), the regulations were revoked based, in part, on assurances that
the effort could be handled more efficiently within the private sector.
    In the Federal Register of August 24, 1995 (60 FR 44182), FDA
proposed the ``Prescription Drug Product Labeling: Medication Guide
Requirements,'' designed to set specific distribution and quality goals
and timeframes for distributing written information to patients. In the
Federal Register of December 1, 1998 (63 FR 66378), the Agency
published a final rule that established a program under which
Medication Guides would be required for a small number of drugs
considered to pose a serious and significant public health concern (21
CFR 208.20).
    Evidence suggests that both the content (e.g., organization) and
format (e.g., white space) of a document will impact the comprehension
of patient information. Research on reading behavior and document
simplification suggests that the use of less complex terminology
presented in shorter sentences with a more organized, or chunked,
structure should improve consumer processing for at least three
reasons. First, it should decrease the cognitive load engendered by the
current physician-directed format. Second, a more structured and
organized patient information document should present a less imposing
processing demand, increasing consumers' willingness and self-perceived
ability to read and understand the presented material. Research with
the format of over-the-counter (OTC) drug labels,\4\ the nutrition
facts label,\5\ and other information formats \6\ demonstrates that
information presented with section headings, graphics (such as
bullets), and other design elements is more easily read than
information presented in paragraph format. Consumers are more likely to
engage in behavior they believe they can successfully complete.\7\
Third, a patient information document that provides readers with
clearer ``signals'' regarding the most important information should
help readers prioritize the importance of the presented information.
This should increase the probability that the set of information
identified as important is subjected to more complete mental
processing, thereby increasing the communication of that
information.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Aikin, K.J., ``Consumer Comprehension and Preference for
Variations in the Proposed Over-The-Counter Drug Labeling Format,
Final Report,'' 1998; Vigilante, W.J., M.S. Wogalter, ``The
Preferred Order of Over-the-Counter (OTC) Pharmaceutical Label
Components,'' Drug Information Journal, 31, 973-988, 1997.
    \5\ Levy, A.S., S.B. Fein, R.E. Schucker, ``More Effective
Nutrition Label Formats Are Not Necessarily More Preferred,''
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 92(10), 1230-1234,
1992.
    \6\ Lorch, R., E. Lorch, ``Effects of Organizational Signals on
Text-Processing Strategies,'' Journal of Educational Psychology,
87(4), 537-544, 1995; Lorch, R., E. Lorch, ``Effects of
Organizational Signals on Free Recall of Expository Text,'' Journal
of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 38-48, 1996; Lorch, R., E. Lorch,
W. Inman, ``Effects of Signaling Topic Structure on Text Recall,''
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 281-290, 1993.
    \7\ Wood, R., A. Bandura, ``Impact of Conceptions of Ability on
Self-Regulatory Mechanisms and Complex Decision Making,'' Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407-415, 1989.
    \8\ Lorch, R., E. Lorch, ``Effects of Organizational Signals on
Text-Processing Strategies,'' Journal of Educational Psychology,
87(4), 537-544, 1995; Lorch, R., E. Lorch, ``Effects of
Organizational Signals on Free Recall of Expository Text,'' Journal
of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 38-48, 1996; Lorch, R., E. Lorch,
W. Inman, ``Effects of Signaling Topic Structure on Text Recall,''
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 281-290, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of FDA's efforts to improve the patient information
received with prescription drugs, a Risk Communications Advisory
Committee meeting was held on February 26 and 27, 2009. At this
meeting, committee members discussed issues such as the ones described
previously in this document and listened to stakeholder problems
regarding the design and distribution of patient information. Following
the advisory committee meeting, the working group created four
prototypes to aid discussion at a public workshop to be held later in
the year.
    This public workshop was held on September 24 and 25, 2009. During
the workshop stakeholders from industry, consumer advocacy, and
academia converged to discuss desirable features for a single-document
patient leaflet, if that were to be developed, consumer tested, and
distributed. Participants were divided into six groups to address the
pros and cons of the four prototypes with the goal of deciding which
features participants appreciated and did not appreciate. For
additional information on the September 24 and 25, 2009, public
workshop, go to http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/'NewsEvents/ucm168106.htm.
    Given the information obtained from workshop participants, the
working

group refined several prototypes and designed a study to investigate
the usefulness of three possible patient information formats from a
user perspective. The results of this study will inform FDA as to the
usefulness and parameters of various format options for the patient
information documents.

Description of the Project

    This project is designed to test different ways of presenting
information about prescription drugs to patients who have obtained a
prescription. The information used will be based on a fictitious
medication for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing
spondylitis, and plaque psoriasis. Data collection will occur via
computer at training and testing facilities with orientation and
debriefing conducted by interviewers. Participants will include adults
who have been diagnosed with one of the conditions the fictitious drug
treats. Participants will be prescreened to obtain a reasonable
representation of health literacy, including those who score at the
lower end of the scale. Questionnaire measures will include open- and
closed-ended questions. Extensive pretesting of materials and stimuli
will be conducted to refine the experimental stimuli and dependent
measures and to ensure the stimuli meet minimum communication
requirements and are delivering expected messages.

Proposed Study Design and Protocol

    The study is experimental and will have two independent variables
in a 3x2 design. The independent variables are Format (3 levels: Drug
Facts, Minimal Column, and Column Plus) and Order (2 levels: Warning
first and Indication first).

                                                     Format
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Minimal
                              Order                                 Drug facts        column        Column plus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning first...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indication first................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Order manipulation will vary the primacy of the boxed warning
information versus the paragraph about the uses to the drug. In terms
of Format, the Drug Facts format will follow the conventions of the
existing OTC labeling. The Minimal Column condition will contain
information in two columns with only basic information in the sections
regarding information patients should tell their doctors. The Column
Plus condition will also present information in two columns, but will
include additional contextual information in the sections about what
information patients should report to their doctors.
    Participants with relevant medical conditions will be randomly
assigned to one of the six experimental conditions and each participant
will see only one version of the patient information. Participants will
be prescreened to represent a range of health literacy levels,
including a portion with low literacy. Thus, all participants in the
study will have been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing
spondylitis, or plaque psoriasis and at least 30 percent of the sample
will fall in the lower range of literacy. Because the average reading
level in the United States is estimated to be 8th grade \9\ and it is
recommended that consumer medication information be written at a 5th
grade reading level,\10\ the low literate cohort will consist of
consumers who have 5th to 8th grade reading skills. Education level is
not a reliable substitute for literacy testing. At screening, the
participants will be assessed for literacy level using a validated
instrument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Cotunga N., C.E. Vickery, K.M. Carpenter-Haefele,
``Evaluation of Literacy Level of Patient Education Pages in Health-
Related Journals,'' Journal of Community Health, 30(3), 213-219,
2005.
    \10\ Andrus, M.R., M.T. Roth, ``Health Literacy: A Review,''
Pharmacotherapy, 22(3), 282-302, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional small study will be conducted via the Internet to
determine whether electronic prototype presentation alters the
processing of the information in any way. Two-hundred individuals with
the same characteristics of the original sample (e.g., medical
condition and literacy levels) will be recruited over the Internet and
will complete the same questionnaire as original participants.
    FDA is undertaking this study because it does not yet have
sufficient evidence-based research relating to patient needs, or
whether those needs are being effectively met. Research related to the
functionality and effectiveness of written patient information
consistently identifies the importance of performance-based testing as
well as content based testing, which enables the evaluation of
materials in order to assure their utility and identify issues in
content format, or design. Development of new prescription drug patient
materials must be based on consumer testing that focuses on utility to
the patient and comprehension of material in the broadest audience
possible. FDA has developed three prototypes in order to user test
prescription drug information with consumers in order to achieve this
goal. For further information, contact Elizabeth Berbakos (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    In the Federal Register of May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23775), FDA published
a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of
information. FDA received five comments. In the following section, we
outline the observations and suggestions raised in the comments and
provide our responses. Four of the five comments expressed support for
the conductance of the research to explore issues of quantitative
benefit information. They all described the collection of data as a
worthy endeavor which will provide useful information on how best to
communicate information to patients about their prescription drugs.
    (Comment 1) The first comment stated that FDA's approach to
examining the content and format of the prototypes is reasonable. This
comment provided minor suggestions regarding how to improve the study,
most of which are currently addressed in the questionnaire. For
example, we have included time measurement, questions about the safe
use of the product, and scenario-based questions in the questionnaire
for the second phase of our study. We have incorporated other
suggestions into the qualitative first phase of our project. In this
phase, we will present participants with all versions of the prototypes
to assess their preferences and will able to probe participants more
thoroughly about their reactions and responses to the prototypes.
    (Comment 2) This comment provided a statement of support for the
approval

of this data collection, claiming the study will have practical
utility.
    (Comment 3) This comment provided support for the research proposed
in this document and reported that the components identified by FDA are
consistent with those found in their own research. The comment
suggested the inclusion of a visual system for identifying drug
products and the inclusion of a variety of font sizes for people with
visual impairments. FDA fully supports the presentation of information
for special populations. However, the scope of the present study is to
determine one format out of several that works with a range of
participants. After this step, we can move toward incorporating special
features, such as pictures or large font, to accommodate patients with
varying needs.
    (Comment 4) Part of comment 4 was outside the scope of the proposed
data collection; i.e., regarding the proper channels for distribution
of Patient Medication Information (PMI). Regarding the parts of the
comment that focused on the proposed research, the comment generally
discussed omissions in the current proposed prototypes. These
additional pieces of information have all been discussed at length at
various public and expert meetings, including the public workshop in
September 2009, the Brookings Institute Expert Workshop in July 2010,
and the Part 15 hearing in September 2010. When improving medication
documents for patients, there is always a trade-off between the desire
to keep it simple and the desire to provide more information. Although
a small number of individuals reported the desire for exhaustive
information, the great majority of the feedback FDA has received and
the literature the Agency has reviewed suggests that the information in
the currently proposed prototypes is a reasonable collection of the
important information that patients need to safely use their
medications. Moreover, research suggests that providing large amounts
of information will not serve patients well, but may instead impede
their understanding of the information.\11\ Finally, the proposed
research itself is designed to address the issue of whether the
information in the prototypes is optimal. The first phase of the
research will involve qualitative interviews, wherein participants will
have ample opportunity to tell us what they want and need to know. The
second phase of the research will involve quantitative assessment of
the comprehension of important information in the document. Thus, we
believe our two-pronged approach will address some of the concerns
raised in this comment and we must defer to the volumes of other
feedback we have received regarding the limiting of information in PMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, for example, Day, R.S, PMI: From Concept to
Compliance, Development and Distribution of Patient Medication
Information for Prescription Drugs: Part 15 Public Hearing, FDA
White Oak Campus, Silver Spring, MD, (September 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Comment 5) Comment 5 had five main concerns with the study. First,
the comment suggested that FDA reach out to Consumer Medication
Information (CMI) publishers as early as possible in the development of
the prototypes. FDA concurs with the importance of doing this and, in
fact, has already done so multiple times and in multiple venues.
Several CMI publishers participated in the public workshop held in
September 2009 and spoke at the Part 15 hearing in September 2010.
    Second, the comment claims that FDA has not used an evidence-based
strategy to develop the PMI prototypes. We disagree. FDA developed the
prototypes based on the scientific literature. As described in the
first section of this document, the prototypes were based on
recommendations to include chunks of information that would reduce
cognitive load and facilitate processing by including plenty of white
space, headings, and maintaining a readable font size. From this first
step, public feedback was obtained and incorporated, and feedback from
communications experts was obtained and incorporated, resulting in the
current prototypes. At this stage, we are proposing the continuation of
the gathering of evidence by conducting the proposed two-part study to
examine the PMI prototypes.
    Third, the comment expresses concerns that the use of a fictitious
drug (and only one) may limit the generalizability of the findings of
the study. The use of a fictitious drug eliminates the confound of
prior knowledge when asking participants about the information they
see. Rheutopia was selected to be a very close amalgam of an existing
class of drugs. This class was chosen because it has a complicated set
of risks, it is given by injection (an unusual administration), and it
has multiple indications. FDA's reasoning is that if successful PMI can
be developed for such a complex drug, PMI for drugs with simpler
profiles will be attainable. It is true we are investigating only one
drug in the current study; this decision was based on resource
constraints. One research study cannot accomplish all goals. Future
studies may be used to assess the applicability of the results in other
drug classes.
    Fourth, the comment expresses concern that the research will not
include a variety of different populations and that the lack of detail
provided in the Federal Register notice suggests that very little
knowledge will be gained from the research. Regarding the first part,
the revised research proposed in this document includes low literacy
individuals with chronic disease, general population individuals, and
individuals with one of the medical conditions that Rheutopia treats.
FDA believes these are the populations most relevant to this particular
type of drug, as well as other chronic diseases. In terms of the detail
provided, the questionnaire, which provided extensive detail about the
exact questions proposed, was available upon request during the first
comment period and will continue to be available during the second
comment period.
    Fifth and finally, the comment suggested that comparing variations
of a short, one-page document limits the findings because there will be
no comparison to a longer document, which may perform better. FDA
concurs. In the revised research currently proposed, we have included a
control condition. A subset of individuals will be randomly assigned to
see the Medication Guide format for Rheutopia. Thus, we will compare
two proposed one-page prototypes with an existing document that would
be currently required for Rheutopia if it were a real drug.

External Reviewers

    In addition to public comment, FDA's Division of Drug Marketing,
Advertising, and Communications discussed the prototypes and the
research design and protocol with a panel of 19 experts convened by the
Brookings Institution on July 21, 2010. The names of these individuals
can be found in Appendix A. After the workshop, several experts
provided detailed written feedback to FDA, which was incorporated into
the design of the study.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Annual
          Number of respondents            frequency  per     Total annual        Hours per        Total hours
                                              response          responses         response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
540.....................................                 1               540             20/60               180
900.....................................                 1               900             25/60               375
200.....................................                 1               200             25/60                83
    Total...............................                                                                     638
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The burden chart reflects up to 3 pretests of 180 individuals each,
900 participants in the main study, and 200 participants in the
followup study involving electronic administration.

    Dated: December 8, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-31388 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2017-2019]
[FR Doc No: 2012-616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR PART 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1161]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ice Rescue Exercise; Green Bay, Dyckesville, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Green Bay near Dyckesville, Wisconsin. This zone is intended
to restrict vessels and persons from a portion of Green Bay due to a
large scale ice rescue exercise that will involve multiple State and
Federal agencies. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect
the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the
ice rescue exercise.

DATES: This rule is effective between 7 a.m. on January 17, 2012, and 7
a.m. on January 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1161 and are available online
by going to www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1161 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, contact or email BM1 Adam Kraft, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when an agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under U.S.C. 553 (b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this. The final details for the ice rescue exercise
were not received by the Coast Guard in sufficient time for a comment
period to run before the start of the event. Thus, waiting for a
comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from performing its
statutory function of protecting life on navigable waters during the
ice rescue exercise and thus would be impractical and contrary to the
public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, a 30 day notice period would be impractical
and contrary to the public interest.

Background and Purpose

    Local, state, and federal officials have set up an ice rescue
exercise on the waters of Green Bay. This exercise will provide a
realistic simulation of a large scale ice rescue response that would
include the efforts of multiple local, State, and Federal agencies.
These exercises are meant to establish and maintain continuity in the
response efforts of multiple agencies. The Captain of the Port Sector
Lake has determined that this ice rescue exercise will pose hazards to
the public.

Discussion of Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Sector Lake Michigan has determined that it is necessary to establish a
temporary safety zone to protect people and vessels. The safety zone
will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Green Bay within the arc of
a circle with a 2000-yard radius of the Red River county park with its
center point located with its center in the approximate position
44[deg]40'00'' N, 087[deg]45'00'' W. [DATUM: NAD 83]. This safety zone
will be effective and enforce between 7 a.m. on January 17, 2012 and 7
a.m. on January 20, 2012.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her
designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866. The
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and exist for relatively short time. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may
still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of
the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The people or vessels intending to use this portion
of Green Bay between 7 a.m. on January 17, 2012 and 7 a.m. on January
20, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will only be enforced for a relatively short time. Plus, the Coast
Guard expects that there will be little to no vessel traffic due to the
fact that this portion of the waterway will be iced over. It is
expected that ice fishermen may be affected but public notice flyers to
be distributed throughout the town of Dyckesville, along with this
publication in the Federal Register, will mitigate any economic impact
and keep a substantial number of ice fishermen from being affected.
    In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping,
commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of The Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on scene representative to transit
through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public
via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-(888) 734-3247). The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
safety zone and is therefore categorically excluded under paragraph
34(g) of the Instruction.
    A final environmental analysis check list and categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-1161 to read as follows

Sec.  165.T09-1161  Safety Zone; Ice Rescue Exercise, Green Bay,
Dyckesville, Wisconsin

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters of Green Bay within the arc of a circle with a 2000-yard radius
of the Red River county park with its center point located with its
center in the approximate position 44[deg]40'00'' N, 087[deg]45'00'' W.
[DATUM: NAD 83].
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule is effective and
will be enforced from 7 a.m. on January 17, 2012, until 7 a.m. on
January 20, 2012.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated
representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his
or her designated representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative of
the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will be in the area of
the ice rescue exercise at all times.
    (4) People or vessels desiring to enter or operate within the
safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her designated representative to obtain permission
to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her
designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.

    Dated: January 5, 2012.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2012-616 Filed 1-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


' 1 K, n EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP. INC.

MEMORANDUM TO: Walt Stevenson, EPNCombustion Group FROM: Jason M. Huckaby, Eastern Research Group DATE: June 17,2002 m D 3 SUBJECT: National Emission Trends for Large Municipal Waste Combustion Units [ Years 1990 to 20051 1.0 BACKGROUND The purpose of this memorandum is to present national emission trends for large Municipal Waste Combustor ( EVIWC) units. Emission trends for large MWC units are presented for dioxdhrans, cadmium ( Cd), lead ( Pb), mercury ( Hg), particulate matter ( PM), hydrochloric acid ( HCl), sulfur dioxide ( S02), and nitrogen oxides ( NO,). In this memorandum, large MWCs are those with a combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day. These MWCs are regulated under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. The enission trends are presented for the period between 1990 and 2005. The Clean Air Act ( CAA) required maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) retrofits at all large MWC units by December 2000. Table 1 presents a summaiy of emissions for large MWCs for year 1990 ( pre MACT) and 2000 ( post MACT). Substantial emission reductions were achieved. A separate memorandum presents emission trends for small L W C units regulated under 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB ( 35 to 250 tons per day capacity). This memorandum for large MWCs replaces the 1999 national emission trend memorandurn' for large IvEVCs. The updated PJIVVC emissions estimates for large MWC units contained in this memorandum were prepared using updated emission factors and volumetric flow data based on recent MWC testing and MWC operating data. This information is discussed below under Section 2.0 ( Results), Section 3.0 ( Calculations) and Section 4.0 ( References).

C:\ SmallMWCUnventory\ LargelJnits\ LMWCemissians6ZO. wpd 1 Table 1. Emissions for Large MWC Units for Year 1990 and 2000 Pollutant Percent Emission 1990 Emissions 2000 Emissions Reduction ( tons per year) ( tons per year) Achieved The dioxin emissions are presented on a g/ yr, toxic equivalent quantity ( TEQ) basis, all other emksion reductions in TPY.' TEQ dioxin emissions are based on 1989 NATO Toxic Equivalency Factors. g/ yr = gram per year TPY = tons per year 2.0 RESULTS Emissions estimates for large MWCs were prepared for years 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2000, and 2005. Emissions varied with time as MWC's completed retrofits or elected to close rather than retrofit. The compliance dates used in the emission estimates reflect actual retrofit dates and include staggered retrofit dates for MWC facilities with multiple MWC units, where appropriate. Inventories of NIWC units were obtained from existing inventory memoranda and updated with recent information on RlWC unit closures and air pollution control device ( APCD) retrofits. I From the updated inventory of MWC units, a database of large MWC units was developed for the years of 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999,2000, and 2005. The MWC population varies with time as older MWC units closed and new MWC units opened. For year 2000, a companion large MWC inventory has been prepared to document the final large MWC population and APCD application following MACT retrofits. 2 A summary of the updated inventory for large MWC units and total MWG capacity is presented in table 2. A graphical representation of capacity for large MWC units is shown in figure 1. The emissions projections for year 2005 assume the number and total capacity of MWC units would be the same as in 2000.

C:\ S~ mallMWC\ hventory\ Ly\~ slrgeUnits\ LMWCemid 2 Table 2. Summary of the number of Large MWC Facilities, Units, and Total Combustion Capacity Year Total Combustion Number of Large Number of Large Capacity MWC Units ( tons per day) MWC Facilities Using this new large NlWC inventory, emissions were calculated for eight section 129 pollutants using updated emission factors, volumetric flow rate, capacity and AP 42 type emission factors. A limited amount of stack test data was also used. The updated emission estimates for the eight pollutants for the years 4990, 1993, 1996, 1999,2000, and 2005 are presented in table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Emissions Estimates from Large MWC Units Dioxin/ Dioxin/ Furan. Furall, total TEQ' mass Cd Pb Hg PM  IC1 so2 Year ( g/ yr) ( dyr) ( TPY) ( TPY) ( TPY) ( TPY) ( TPY) (` IPY)

Equivalency Factors. gfyr = grams per year TPY = tons pes year C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory\ LargeUnits\ LM WCemissions620. wpd 3 50,600 1 * r k E.

A graphical representation of the pollutant emissions data for the above years is shown in figures 2 through 18. These emissions estimates include only large MWC units ( greater than 258 tons per day). These emissions trends show that substantial reductions in large MWC unit emissions have occurred since 1990. These emission reductions are a result of ( 1) retrofit of APCD on existing MWC units, ( 2) retirement of several existing MWC units, and ( 3) special actions, most notably EPA's dioxin initiative and the voluntary mercury reduction by battery manufacturers 3.0 CALCULATIONS Nationd MWC emissions are a function of three variables: ( I) MWC unit inventory, ( 2 )

emission factors, and ( 3) APCD retrofit or closure schedule. The updated large MWC inventory is presented in attachment 1. Updated emission factors were developed for the most common MCDkombustor combinations using the average performance determined from the test data Rom the large MWCs retrofits. This information was supplemented with AP 42 emission factors for less common AKBlcombustor combination^.^ A limited amount of test data was also used.

See attachment 2 for a listing of emission factors used. See table 4 for identification of MWCs where test data was used.

To determine annual national emissions for each pollutant, emissions were calculated for each individual h4WC unit. The emissions from individual units were then summed to give a national emission rate. The calculation of individual MWC unit emissions was conducted using plant specific information such as rated unit capacity, unit capacity factor, type of combustor, and type of APCD. Emission concentrations, flow rate data, and capacity factor representative of typical emissions was used for the emission calculations. Table 4 lists the large MWC where test data were used ira the calculations.

The following equation was used to convert pollutant stack concentrations to tons per year ( TPU) emitted:

PE= C* V* T* CF* 365 * I. 1 C: 1Srna~ WC\ Znventory\ LargeUnits~ MWCem~ s~ ons620. wpd 4 4 i.

t E Where:

PE = Pollutant emission rate ( TPY); C = Flue gas concentration factor ( Mg/ dscm @ 7% 02); V T = MWC unit capacity ( tondday); CF = Capacity factor ( dimensionless); = Volumetric flow factor ( dscm 0 7% 02/ ton of waste fired);

365 aaysiyr; and 1.1 tQlXdbfg.

Table 4. Large MWC Units with Test Data  Based Emission Estimates Facility Name 1 State I Unit Number ll Adkondack RRF NY 1 Adkondack RRF NY 2 C:\ SinallMWC\ lnventory~ r~~ Units\ LM WCemissionsG20, wpd 5 P x I Relative to the 1999 estimates, these updated estimates have been prepared talking advantage of the new information on volumetric flowrate and annual capacity factors available from the data survey of the MACT retrofits at 167 large MWCS.~ The volumetric flow factor ( V) for rehse derived fuel ( IRDF) units was updated to 5,026 dry standard cubic meter per ton ( ~ s c ~ t ~ ~ ) MSW combusted, based on a W squared analysis of MACT compliance test d a k 4 Lkewise, the volumetric flow factor ( V) for non RP> F units was updated to 4,299 dscdton MSW combusted. Based on the same MACT compliance test data, the capacity factor for all units was updated to 0.86 ( 86%) based on a R squared analysis. A companion analysis is available that documents the actual large MWC emissions for year 2000 using year 2000 MACT stack test compliance data. 5 Those data agree very well with the year 2000 estimates contained in this trends memo ( see table 5). i Table 5. Comparison of Actual Versus Estimated Large MWC Emissions for 2080 Actual 2000 emissions based on individual large MWC stack test compliance data ( Reference 5).

I,

Estimated from emissions developed following procedures in this memorandum ( see table 3).

I 4. REFERENCES I 1. Memorandum from B. Nelson, Eastern Research Group, Inc, to Walt Stevenson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of the National Emission Estimates for Municipal Waste Combustion Units. A 90 45: VIII B 1. September 30, 1999.

Memorandum from J. Huckaby, Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Walt Stevenson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 200 1 National Inventory of Large Municipal Waste Combustion ( WnWC) Units. A 90 45: VIII B 6. June 17, 2002. I . 2.

I 3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. February 1996.

C:\ SmallMWC\ Inven~ o~ L~ geU~ 1its\ LMWCemi20 wpd 6 4. Memorandum from Can Kuterdem and Bradley Nelson, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc. to Walt Stevenson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Perfonnance/ Test Data for Large Municipal Waste Combustors at MACT Compliance ( year 2000 data). A 90 45; VIII B 4. June 18,2002.

5. Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc. to Walt Stevenson, U. S I Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions from Large Municipal Waste Combustor Units ( MWGs) Following MACT Retrofit ( Year 2000 Test Data). A 90 45; vm B 3. June 19, 2002.

I C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventa~~ a~ geUn1ts\ LMWCerms~ 1ans620 wpd 7 Q) m 4 b Y o i i L I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In  4 63 ( v T 0, 9 0 0 0 o_ 0 0 0 9 z co b a T 1 r  x Q vd CS m .

__*

I I1 I 1 9 cu  P

"! c3  P

Lo I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m c3 N cu 0 0 0 Lo_ d d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo! 0 Lo_ 0 * e. Lo 9 C:\ SmallMWCUnventor~ argeUNts\ LMWCemissions6ZO.~ pd ho 0 0 cu 0 0 0 cv a 0, 0, T i P b a cv " E b I 7 tc I I I I I I U t i l 0 2 I ! I I I Lo 0 0 cu 0 0 0 cu t s I I I I I I I I I I J 0 0 0 0 9 Lo 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Lo 9 x cu 2 0 9 T T 9 x m 2 Tj d c I I I I I Y I I I I  J I. I E I I I I  _ c m  3 2 I I I 1 I 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 m cu cu 7 0 m 1 0 0 0 9 9 0 Ln Lo  3  3 R  8 : 0 9 9 0 o > : : 8 13 C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemid v)

c a . c, n

Y E 0 0 m F 14 C:\ SmallMWC\ Xnventory\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemi. wpd * L * _ I*","

I I I % w 3 23)

L . n a 0 T

O a a

15 C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory\ LargeUnitsUMWCe~ ssions62O.~ d i Y I Q)

tn 9 F N 6)

0 m m,

! I Lo m 0 m k I I LD 0 0 cu 0 0 0 c\ 1 I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 0 Lo c3 cu cu m I I I i 0 0 0 0 0 0 u3 0 Lo 0 9 0

T 7 8 16 C.\ SmallMWC\ Inventory~ geUnits\ LMWCemis. wpd 0 2 iz P 3 02 I I 17 C:\ SmallMWCUnventoryUa1geUNt~ WWCe~ ssions6~. wpd L 19 C : \ S m a l l M W C \ I n v e n t o r y ~ g e U n i t s \ L M W C e d 9 4 3 . R 5 0 0 I  Tt m P i Q 0 0 N L( 0 cw cd u d E 0 I  4 * 73 21 C:\ SmallMWC\ lnventory\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemi wpd b u .3 U W 22 C:\ SmallM'WC\ Invento~~ geU~ ts~ MWCe~ ssions62O.~ d t 24 C:\ SmalliMWC\ Invento~ y~ geUnits\ LhaWCe~ ssio~ s~ 2O.~ d i C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory~ geUnits\ LMWCemissions62O.~ pd 25 26 C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemid 1 i 4 27 C:\ SmallhlWC\ I1~ ventory\ LargeUnits\ LhlWCe~ ssions6ZO.~ pd 28 C : \ S m ~ l M W C \ I n v e n t o ~ y ~ ~ ~ U N t s \ L M W C e m d 1p 0 Y 29 U 30 C:\ SmallM WC\~ ventoiy\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemissions62O.~ d


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2706-2707]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00539]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9379; 34-68604; File No. 265-27]

Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies; Meeting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on
Small and Emerging Companies is providing notice that it will hold a
public meeting on Friday, February 1, 2013, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-
006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.
The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EST) and will be open to the
public. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
www.sec.gov. Persons needing special accommodations to take part
because of a disability should notify the contact person listed below.
The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
    The agenda for the meeting includes consideration of
recommendations and other matters relating to rules and regulations
affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities
laws.

DATES: The public meeting will be held Friday, February 1, 2013.
Written statements should be received on or before January 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. Written statements may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml); or
     Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-27 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

     Send paper statements in triplicate to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-27. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all statements on the Advisory
Committee's Web site (http://www.sec.gov./info/smallbus/acsec.shtml).
    Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You

should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johanna V. Losert, Special Counsel, at
(202) 551-3460, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of
Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.-App. 1, and the regulations
thereunder, Lona Nallengara, Designated Federal Officer of the
Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.

    Dated: January 9, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-00539 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15843-15845]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6411]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Nissan

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full Nissan North America, Inc.'s
(Nissan) petition for exemption of the Juke vehicle line in accordance
with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.
This petition is granted, because the agency has determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). Nissan requested confidential
treatment of specific information in its petition by letter dated
November 29, 2011. The agency addressed Nissan's request for
confidential treatment by letter dated December 29, 2011.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2013 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 29, 2011,
Nissan requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2013 Nissan
Juke vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from parts-
marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device
as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Nissan
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design and
location of the components of the antitheft device for the Juke vehicle
line. Nissan will install a passive transponder-based, electronic
immobilizer, antitheft device as standard equipment on its Juke vehicle
line beginning with MY 2013. Major components of the antitheft device
will include an engine control module, immobilizer/body control module
(BCM), immobilizer antenna and a security indicator light. Nissan will
also install an audible and visible alarm system on the Juke as
standard equipment. Nissan stated that activation of the immobilization
device occurs automatically when the ignition key is turned to the
``OFF'' position and all the doors are closed and locked through the
use of the key or the remote control mechanism. Deactivation occurs
when all the doors are unlocked with the key or remote control
mechanism. Nissan's submission is considered a complete petition as
required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements

contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.
543.6.
    Nissan stated that the immobilizer device prevents normal operation
of the vehicle without the use of a special key. Nissan further stated
that installation of the theft alarm system in the device has been
designed to protect the belongings within the vehicle and the vehicle
itself from being stolen when the back door and all of the side doors
are closed and locked. The alarm system is activated when any attempt
is made to open any of the vehicle doors without the use of the key or
remote control mechanism. Nissan stated that when the alarm is
activated, the head lamps will flash and the horn will sound. Nissan
stated that deactivation of the alarm can only occur when the driver's
side door is unlocked with the key or the remote control device.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan
provided information on the reliability and durability of the device.
Nissan stated that its antitheft device is tested for specific
parameters to ensure its reliability and durability. Additionally,
Nissan stated that the immobilizer device satisfies the requirements of
European Directive ECE R116, including tamper resistance. Nissan
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the
device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its
specified requirements for each test.
    Nissan provided data on the effectiveness of the antitheft device
installed on its Juke vehicle line in support of the belief that its
antitheft device will be highly effective in reducing and deterring
theft. Nissan referenced the National Insurance Crime Bureau's data
which it stated showed a 70 percent reduction in theft when comparing
MY 1997 Ford Mustangs (with a standard immobilizer) to MY 1995 Ford
Mustangs (without an immobilizer). Nissan also referenced the Highway
Loss Data Institute's data which reported that BMW vehicles experienced
theft loss reductions resulting in a 73 percent decrease in relative
claim frequency and a 78 percent lower average loss payment per claim
for vehicles equipped with an immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan stated
that theft rates for its Pathfinder vehicle experienced reductions from
model year (MY) 2000 to 2001 with implementation of the engine
immobilizer device as standard equipment and further significant
reductions subsequent to MY 2001. Specifically, Nissan noted that the
agency's theft rate data for MY's 2001 through 2006 reported theft
rates of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, 1.7298 and 1.3474 respectively
for the Nissan Pathfinder after installation of an immobilizer device.
    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as
effective as compliance with the parts-marking requirements in reducing
and deterring vehicle theft, Nissan compared its device to other
similar devices previously granted exemptions by the agency.
Specifically, it referenced the agency's grant of a full exemption to
General Motors Corporation for the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora
(58 FR 44872, August 25, 1993), and Cadillac Seville vehicle lines (62
FR 20058, April 24, 1997) from the parts-marking requirements of the
theft prevention standard. Nissan stated that it believes that since
its device is functionally equivalent to other comparable
manufacturers' devices that have already been granted parts-marking
exemptions by the agency such as the ``PASS-Key III'' device used on
the 1997 Buick Park Avenue, the 1998 Cadillac Seville and the 2000
Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac Bonneville, Buick LeSabre and Oldsmobile
Aurora lines, the Nissan immobilizer device has the potential to
achieve the level of effectiveness equivalent to the ``PASS-Key III''
device.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Nissan on the device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Juke vehicle line
is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the
device will provide the five types of performance listed in Sec.
543.6(a)(3): promoting activation, attracting attention to the efforts
of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other
than a key, preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons, preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Nissan has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Juke vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR
part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Nissan provided
about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Juke vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2013
model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-
1, identifies those lines that are exempt from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication
requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates,
the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a
general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to
notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Nissan wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Sec.  543.7(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: March 9, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-6411 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67760-67761]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23618]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The date of February 26, 2021 has been established for the FIRM
and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Pulaski County, Arkansas and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1976
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Little Rock....................  Public Works Administration
                                          Building, 701 West Markham
                                          Street, Little Rock, AR 72201.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Kauai County, Hawaii
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1963
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kauai County...........................  Kauai County Department of
                                          Public Works, 4444 Rice
                                          Street, Lihue, HI 96766.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Metropolitan Government of Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky
                           (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1860
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Government of Louisville    Metropolitan Government of
 and Jefferson County, Kentucky.          Louisville and Jefferson
                                          County Metropolitan Sewer
                                          District, 700 West Liberty
                                          Street, Louisville, KY 40203.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Juniata County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1923
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Township of Susquehanna................  Susquehanna Township Municipal
                                          Building, 580 Gamby Hill Road,
                                          Liverpool, PA 17045.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Union County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1923
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Township of Union......................  Union Township Municipal
                                          Building, 70 Municipal Lane,
                                          Winfield, PA 17889.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Cheatham County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Ashland City...................  City Hall, 101 Court Street,
                                          Ashland City, TN 37015.
Town of Pleasant View..................  City Hall, 1008 Civic Court,
                                          Pleasant View, TN 37146.
Unincorporated Areas of Cheatham County  Cheatham County Building and
                                          Codes Department, 111 Frey
                                          Street, Ashland City, TN
                                          37015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Robertson County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Coopertown.....................  Coopertown City Hall, 2525
                                          Burgess Gower Road,
                                          Springfield, TN 37172.
Unincorporated Areas of Robertson        Robertson County Planning and
 County.                                  Zoning Building, 527 South
                                          Brown Street, Springfield, TN
                                          37172.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sumner County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Goodlettsville.................  Planning and Zoning Department,
                                          318 North Main Street,
                                          Goodlettsville, TN 37072.
City of Hendersonville.................  City Hall, 101 Maple Drive
                                          North, Hendersonville, TN
                                          37075.
City of Millersville...................  City Hall, 1246 Louisville
                                          Highway, Millersville, TN
                                          37072.
Unincorporated Areas of Sumner County..  Sumner County Building and
                                          Codes Department, 355 North
                                          Belvedere Drive, Room 208,
                                          Gallatin, TN 37066.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Williamson County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Brentwood......................  City Hall, 5211 Maryland Way,
                                          Brentwood, TN 37027.
Town of Nolensville....................  Town Hall, 7218 Nolensville
                                          Road, Nolensville, TN 37135.
Unincorporated Areas of Williamson       Williamson County Engineering
 County.                                  Department, 1320 West Main
                                          Street, Suite 400, Franklin,
                                          TN 37064.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Culpeper County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1929
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Culpeper.......................  Town Hall, Planning and
                                          Community Development, 400
                                          South Main Street, Suite 301,
                                          Culpeper, VA 22701.
Unincorporated Areas of Culpeper County  Culpeper County Planning and
                                          Zoning Department, 302 North
                                          Main Street, Culpeper, VA
                                          22701.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Rappahannock County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1921
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Washington.....................  Town Hall, 567 Mount Salem
                                          Avenue, Suite 3, Washington,
                                          VA 22747.
Unincorporated Areas of Rappahanock      Rappahannock County Zoning
 County.                                  Administrator Office, 311H Gay
                                          Street, Washington, VA 22747.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-23618 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54619-54620]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0299]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bay St. Louis, Bay St. Louis, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of temporary deviation from regulations; request
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from how the
CSX Transportation railroad drawbridge across Bay St. Louis, mile 0.5,
Bay St. Louis, MS will be operated. The bridge will continue to open
according to the drawbridge regulations but the bridge tender will
operate this bridge from a remote location at the CSX railroad terminal
in Mobile, Alabama. The Coast Guard is seeking comments from the public
regarding these proposed changes.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on September 7, 2022,
until March 6, 2023.
    Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0299 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this test
deviation, call or email Douglas Blakemore, Eighth Coast Guard District
Bridge Administration Branch Chief at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The CSX Transportation railroad drawbridge crosses the Bay St.
Louis, mile 0.5, Bay St. Louis, MS. The bridge will continue to open
according to the drawbridge regulations but the bridge tender will
operate this bridge from a remote location at the CSX railroad terminal
in Mobile, Alabama. This bridge has a 13 foot vertical clearance at
mean high water, an unlimited vertical clearance when in the open to
vessel position and a 100' horizontal clearance. The bridge operates
according to 33 CFR 117.5.
    CSX Transportation has requested to operate this bridge remotely
from their railroad terminal in Mobile, AL. CSX has installed a remote
operation system at the bridge and a remote control center, located in
Mobile, AL. At the bridge, CSX has installed infrared cameras, closed
circuit cameras and TVs, communication systems and information
technology systems on the bridge that allow an operator from Mobile to
monitor and control the bridge. This waterway is used primarily by
recreational boats and small towing vessels and opens to vessels
approximately 6 times per day.
    The Coast Guard will evaluate the impact of this test on vessels by
analyzing CSX bridge tender logs and public comments.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the test deviation.
    The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking under the
same name and docket number as this test deviation at 87 FR 49793
(August 12, 2022). Both documents can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and comments can be made to either document. In
accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0299 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
    View material in the docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published of any posting or updates to the docket.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).

    Dated: August 16, 2022.
Douglas Blakemore,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, Eighth Coast
Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-19270 Filed 9-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P