[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35268-35271]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0473]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Fireworks Display, Lake Superior; Cornucopia, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Duluth is establishing a
temporary safety zone in the Siskiwit Bay area of Cornucopia, WI to
help protect participants and spectators from a fireworks display
taking place on June 30, 2012.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on June
30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2012-0473]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Judson Coleman, Chief of Waterways management, MSU
Duluth, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> ext 111, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this 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 the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 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 rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until
there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an
NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit
the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with fireworks displays, which are discussed further
below.
    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, waiting for 30 day notice period run would
also be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on June 30, 2012, a fireworks
display will occur in the vicinity of Siskiwit Bay on Lake Superior in
Cornucopia, WI. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain
of the Port zones and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Coast
Guard has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft
pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely
combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested
waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use,
and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious
injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel
movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure
the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize
the associated risks.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    Because of the aforementioned hazards, the Captain of the Port
Duluth has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the launching of the
Cornucopia, WI, fireworks display. The safety zone created by this rule
will encompass all waters of the area bounded by a circle with a 700-
foot radius surrounding the fireworks launch site with its center in
position 46[deg]51'35'' N, 091[deg]06'10'' W.; at Cornucopia, WI.
[DATUM: NAD 83].
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16
during the course of the event.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. 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 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule will be
enforced for only two hours over a single night, and will impact only
the bay where the event will occur.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
    (1) This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in a portion of Siskiwit Bay from 9:00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m. on June 30, 2012.
    (2) This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons:
This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement,
for only 2 hours. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety
zone. Before the activation of the zone, we will issue local Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. 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.

10. 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 create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards

14. 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 determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishing a safety zone. This rule
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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. A new temporary Sec.  165.T10-0473 is added as follows:

Sec.  165.T10-0473  Safety zone; Cornucopia Fireworks, Cornucopia, WI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
waters of Siskiwit Bay in Lake Superior, Cornucopia, Wisconsin, within
a 700-foot radius of position 46[deg]51'35'' N, 091[deg]06'10'' W.; at
Cornucopia, WI. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (b) Effective period. This regulation is effective and will be
enforced from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 30, 2012. The Captain of the
Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, or his on-scene representative may
suspend enforcement of the safety zones at any time.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Marine
Safety Unit Duluth, or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth or
his designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Duluth
or his on-scene representative to request permission to do so. 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,
Marine Safety Unit Duluth or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 21, 2012.
K.R. Bryan,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2012-14380 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71652-71654]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30988 Amdt. No. 3617]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective December 3, 2014. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of December 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;

    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. 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.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFRs and
specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the, associated
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2014.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 11 DECEMBER 2014

Blytheville, AR, Arkansas Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 18, Amdt 2
Blytheville, AR, Arkansas Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 3
Blytheville, AR, Arkansas Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3
Blytheville, AR, Arkansas Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Blytheville, AR, Arkansas Intl, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Blytheville, AR, Arkansas Intl, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 1, CANCELED
New Bedford, MA, New Bedford Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 26
New Bedford, MA, New Bedford Rgnl, LOC BC RWY 23, Amdt 13
New Bedford, MA, New Bedford Rgnl, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 12, CANCELED
New Bedford, MA, New Bedford Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1
New Bedford, MA, New Bedford Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1
Pittsfield, MA, Pittsfield Muni, LOC/DME RWY 26, Amdt 9
Pittsfield, MA, Pittsfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1
Pittsfield, MA, Pittsfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV
(GPS) Y RWY 33L, Amdt 4
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV
(RNP) Z RWY 33L, Amdt 3
South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1B

South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1B
Falls City, NE, Brenner Field, NDB-A, Amdt 3C
Falls City, NE, Brenner Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1
Falls City, NE, Brenner Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 2
Falls City, NE, Brenner Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 4
Sussex, NJ, Sussex, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-A
Pottstown, PA, Heritage Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-A
Canadian, TX, Hemphill County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2
Gordonsville, VA, Gordonsville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig,
CANCELED
Gordonsville, VA, Gordonsville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig,
CANCELED
Gordonsville, VA, Gordonsville Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Gordonsville, VA, Gordonsville Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig

Effective 8 JANUARY 2015

Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2L, ILS RWY 2L (SA CAT
I), ILS RWY 2L (CAT II), ILS RWY 2L (CAT III), Amdt 10
Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 20R, ILS RWY 20R (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 20R (SA CAT II), Amdt 25
Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2R, Amdt 1
Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20L, Amdt 1
Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 2L, Amdt 1
Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 6
Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 20R, Amdt 1
Murrieta/Temecula, CA, French Valley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Mount Carmel, IL, Mount Carmel Muni, VOR/DME RWY 22, Amdt 10A
Liberal, KS, Liberal Mid-America Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 6
Gonzales, LA, Louisiana Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B
Gonzales, LA, Louisiana Rgnl, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2A
Cut Bank, MT, Cut Bank Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig
Cut Bank, MT, Cut Bank Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig
Sylva, NC, Jackson County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
Sylva, NC, Jackson County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Omaha, NE, Eppley Airfield, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 14R, ILS RWY 14R (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 14R (CAT II), ILS RWY 14R (CAT III), Amdt 5A
Omaha, NE, Eppley Airfield, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 18, Amdt 9A
Omaha, NE, Eppley Airfield, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 14R, Amdt 2
Omaha, NE, Eppley Airfield, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18, Amdt 3
Omaha, NE, Eppley Airfield, VOR/DME RWY 32L, Amdt 12
Farmingdale, NY, Republic, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7
Altus, OK, Altus/Quartz Mountain Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Altus, OK, Altus/Quartz Mountain Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Altus, OK, Altus/Quartz Mountain Rgnl, VOR-A, Orig
Altus, OK, Altus/Quartz Mountain Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 4D, CANCELED
Altus, OK, Altus/Quartz Mountain Rgnl, VOR-B, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Oklahoma City, OK, Wiley Post, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17L, Amdt 2
Portland, OR, Portland-Troutdale, NDB OR GPS-A, Amdt 8B, CANCELED
Portland, OR, Portland-Troutdale, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Rapid City, SD, Rapid City Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 20

    RESCINDED: On October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63530), the FAA published
an Amendment in Docket No. 30979, Amdt No. 3609, to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.33. The following
entries for South Haven, MI, effective November 13, 2014 are hereby
rescinded in their entirety:

South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1B
South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1B

[FR Doc. 2014-28245 Filed 12-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 45 (Friday, March 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13055-13057]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03670]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0552; FRL-10005-75-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Negative Declaration for the Oil and Gas Control
Techniques Guideline

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of
Columbia. This revision pertains to a negative declaration for the
October 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)
(2016 Oil and Gas CTG). This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0552. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the ``For Further Information Contact'' section for additional
availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2021. Mr. Schulingkamp can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 21, 2019 (84 FR 64244), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the District of Columbia. In the NPRM,
EPA proposed approval of the District's SIP revision concerning the
negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by the District on July 17, 2019. For additional
information on the CTG please see the NPRM.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    In its submittal, the District of Columbia's Department of Energy
and Environment (DOEE) conducted a search of its sources to determine
if the District has any sources that fall within the applicability of
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. DOEE reviewed the following sources of
information: DOEE's Air Quality Division's permitting database for
potential sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, the Energy
Information Administration's data regarding natural gas pipelines and
areas of oil and gas development, the Department of Homeland Security's
database of critical infrastructure which includes natural gas
compressor stations, the District's Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs database which would include a basic business
license for broad categories of businesses, and the District's point
and area source inventory. Within each database or system reviewed, the
District found no sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. After
completing this search, the District has declared that no sources
subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG exist within the District.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received five sets of anonymous comments in response to the
NPRM, two of which were duplicative.
    Comment 1: One commenter stated that approval of the District's
negative declaration, ``might set a dangerous precedent for the further
regulation and control of the emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs),'' and could cause, ``a much larger issue for the future control
of VOCs.''
    Response 1: EPA understands the commenter's concern with regards to
setting a precedent, however, EPA has historically allowed states to
submit a negative declaration for a particular CTG category if the
state finds that no sources exist in the state which would be subject
to that CTG. EPA has addressed the idea of negative declarations
numerous times and for various national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) including in the General Preamble to the 1990 Amendments,\1\
the 2006 RACT Q&A Memo,\2\ and the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule.\3\
In each of these documents, EPA asserted that if no sources exist in
the nonattainment area for a particular CTG category, the state would
be allowed to submit a negative declaration SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(57 FR 13498 at 13512 (April 16, 1992)).
    \2\ ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT): Questions and Answers'' Memorandum from William T. Harnett,
May 18, 2006.
    \3\ ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' (80
FR 12263 at 12278 (March 6, 2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA has approved negative declarations in the past for
this CTG category in other states as well as other CTG categories for
the District. For example, EPA has approved negative declarations for
the District for the following categories with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS: Automotive and Light-duty Truck Manufacturing; Storage of
Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-roof Tanks; Bulk Gasoline Plants; Petroleum
Refinery Sources; Graphic

Arts Systems; Shipbuilding and Repair; Wood Furniture Coatings; and
more. See 74 FR 28447 (June 16, 2009) and 74 FR 12778 (March 25, 2009).
More recently EPA approved negative declarations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for these same CTG categories. See 84 FR 54507 (October 10,
2019). With respect to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, EPA has already
approved negative declarations for Delaware, Indiana, Vermont, and
California's El Dorado County and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
Districts.\4\ Thus, no precedent is being set by approving the
District's negative declaration with respect to the 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 84 FR 32624 (July 9, 2019) for Delaware, 84 FR 68050
(December 13, 2019) for Indiana, 84 FR 65009 (November 26, 2019) for
Vermont, 83 FR 67696 (December 31, 2018) for El Dorado, and 83 FR
31072 (July 3, 2018) for Yolo-Solano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: One commenter stated that economic effects should be
considered, particularly whether the SIP revision will, ``harm the
economy to compensate for the environment and if the benefits of doing
so exceed the harm it will cause.''
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with this comment. In the case of a
negative declaration, the state is merely certifying that no sources
exist which would necessitate a regulation being developed for a CTG
category. Because there are no sources in the District that could
potentially be subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, the District does
not have to develop and implement a regulation to meet the RACT
requirements of the CTG, and thus, no costs will be imposed on sources
in the District.
    Comment 3: One commenter explained that ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or higher must implement RACT for each category
of VOC sources covered by a CTG document issued between November 15,
1990 and the date of attainment; the commenter suggested that EPA
should update this date to reflect regulations made in current
environmental conditions.
    Response 3: The November 15, 1990 date is established by statute in
CAA section 182(b)(2). EPA cannot through rulemaking change this date.
Changing this date would require legislation passed by Congress and
signed by the President into law.
    Comment 4: One commenter suggested EPA should disapprove the
District's SIP pending review by the ``OSG Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and other available independent scientific
assessments of risks and impacts.'' The commenter claims that EPA is
unable to predict accurately how these gases will alter the climate
system over the next century. The commenter also suggested EPA
disapprove the District's SIP because nothing in the negative
declaration accounts for future development in the oil and natural gas
field. The commenter claims that EPA must require a regulation to
ensure future compliance with the CTG and not allow the District to
increase emissions of VOCs or greenhouse gases (GHGs) like methane.
    Response 4: First, with respect to disapproving the District's SIP
pending external review, EPA disagrees with the commenter. Nothing in
the District's negative declaration SIP revision requires external
review with respect to climate change because the negative declaration
is merely certifying that no sources in the District are subject to the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG. A review of climate change, or its impacts, are
not relevant to the District's SIP revision.
    Second, with respect to disapproving the District's SIP because the
SIP revision does not account for future development and does not
contain a regulation to ensure future compliance with the CTG or
restrict emissions of VOCs and GHGs, EPA disagrees with the commenter.
Nothing in the CAA or EPA's implementing rules or guidance suggests
that states must have a SIP-approved regulation for a category of CTG
sources that does not exist in the state. Should a new source of the
type covered by the existing CTG be constructed in a state after
approval of a negative declaration, EPA expects the state to develop a
regulation and submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP in accordance
with the relevant timing provided for by the CAA. At this time, because
the District does not have any sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG, no regulation is required to be developed and submitted to EPA for
SIP approval.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the District's SIP revision concerning the
negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, which was submitted
on July 17, 2019.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 5, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, approving the District's negative declaration for
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 12, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.470 in the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry
for ``Negative Declaration for the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG'' at
the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.470   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable       submittal    EPA approval date    Additional  explanation
            revision               geographic area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  * * * * * * *
Negative Declaration for the     District of             7/17/19  3/6, 2020, [Insert  Docket 2019-0552.
 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG.    Columbia.                        Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-03670 Filed 3-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P