[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52905-52913]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0438; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWA-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment to Class B Airspace; Salt Lake City, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Salt Lake City, UT, Class B
airspace to contain aircraft conducting Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
instrument approach procedures to Salt Lake City International Airport
(SCL), Salt Lake City, UT. The FAA is taking this action to improve the
flow of air traffic, enhance safety, and reduce the potential for
midair collision, while accommodating the concerns of airspace users.
Further, this effort supports the FAA's national airspace redesign goal
of optimizing terminal and en route airspace to reduce aircraft delays
and improve system capacity.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0438 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWA-4 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations,
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-0438 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWA-4) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Nos. FAA-2011-0438 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWA-4.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/.
    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
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Western Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    In 1989, the FAA issued a final rule establishing the Salt Lake
City, UT, Terminal Control Area (54 FR 43786). As a result of the
Airspace Reclassification final rule (56 FR 65638), which became
effective in 1993, the terms ``terminal control area'' and ``airport
radar service area'' were replaced by ``Class B airspace area'' and
``Class C airspace area,'' respectively. The primary purpose of a Class
B airspace area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the
airspace surrounding airports with high-density air traffic operations
by providing an area in which all aircraft are subject to certain
operating rules and equipment requirements.
    The SLC Class B airspace area was last modified in 1995 (60 FR
48350) using air traffic activity levels from the 1990s, and has not
been modified since. In recent years, Salt Lake City has completed
construction projects to modernize, enhance safety, and provide for
increased capacity at SLC. These projects included the construction of
a new Runway 16 R/34 L at SLC. The new west runway places departures
closer to the Oquirrh Mountains southwest of SLC, and these departures
need to climb to 10,000 feet to safely clear the terrain. This requires
downwind traffic to level at 11,000 feet to remain above departures,
which leaves the arrival aircraft outside the Class B airspace.
    Since the SLC Class B airspace area was established, SLC has
experienced increased traffic levels, a considerably different fleet
mix, and airport infrastructure improvements enabling simultaneous
instrument approach procedures. For calendar year 2009, SLC documented
328,508 total operations and was rated 24th among all Commercial
Service Airports with 9,903,821 passenger enplanements. Under the
current Class B airspace configuration, aircraft routinely enter, exit,
and then reenter Class B airspace while flying published instrument
approach procedures, which is contrary to FAA Orders. Modeling of
existing traffic flows has shown that the proposed expanded Class B
airspace would enhance safety by containing all instrument approach
procedures, and associated traffic patterns, within the

confines of Class B airspace and better segregate IFR aircraft
arriving/departing SLC and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft operating
in the vicinity of the SLC Class B airspace area. The proposed Class B
airspace modifications described in this NPRM are intended to address
these issues.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    In 2009, the FAA initiated action to form an Ad Hoc Committee to
provide comments and recommendations regarding the planned
modifications to the SLC Class B airspace area. Participants in the
committee included representatives from National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA),
Delta and Sky West Airlines, Soaring Society of America (SSA), Utah
Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, Utah General Aviation
Association, local flight schools, and individuals impacted by SLC
Class B airspace.
    The Ad Hoc Committee recommended several charting changes for the
SLC VFR Flyway Chart in order to have fewer ``blue arrow'' routes. This
would eliminate clutter and draw more attention to the safety issue
associated with paraglider and hang glider activity located east of
Interstate 15 (I-15) at Point of the Mountain. The Ad Hoc Committee
agreed that one ``blue arrow'' would suggest a north-south route on the
east side of the Salt Lake Valley; and at the south end, the arrow
would bend around Point of the Mountain. This would encourage pilots to
fly around the hang gliding/paragliding area. The arrow would recommend
northbound at 6,500 feet and southbound at 7,500 feet.
    Additionally, the Ad Hoc Committee suggested a bold note warning
aircraft of the potential for hang gliding/paragliding activity east of
I-15 at Point of the Mountain. A second ``blue arrow'' would suggest a
route between the Garfield Stack at the north end of the Oquirrh
Mountains and Point of the Mountain. The committee also suggested
placing a ``blue arrow'' south and west of Hill Air Force Base. Since
the F-16 aircraft depart southwest from Hill Air Force Base and climb
rapidly to 6,500 feet, it would be safer for VFR aircraft to be at or
below 6,000 feet when transitioning through this area.
    The Ad Hoc Committee requested a high altitude VFR transition route
over I-80 be published. The appropriate Air Traffic Control (ATC)
frequency would be published with a suggested eastbound altitude of
11,500 feet and westbound altitude of 10,500 feet. Salt Lake TRACON
would prefer to have more flexibility with the VFR over flights, and
added ``expect'' to the routing description to indicate flexibility in
route or altitude assignment.
    As announced in the Federal Register (75 FR 73983), informal
airspace meetings were held on January 26, 2011, at the Ogden
Conference Room, Ogden Hinckley Airport Terminal; on February 1, 2011,
at the Conference Room in the Executive Terminal, West Salt Lake City,
UT; and on February 3, 2011, at the Utah Valley University Aviation
Flight Center, Provo, UT. These meetings provided interested airspace
users with an opportunity to present their views and offer suggestions
regarding the planned modification of the SLC Class B airspace. All
comments received as a result of the informal airspace meetings, along
with the recommendations made by the Ad Hoc Committee, were considered
in developing this proposal.

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    Numerous commenters representing the glider community expressed
concern with the proposed floor of area L. The glider pilots requested
that the floor of proposed area L be raised to 10,500 feet to allow
safer glider operations below Class B airspace along the ridgeline of
the Wasatch Mountains.
    One commenter, not associated with the glider community and
regularly transitions through this area, stated that it was unsafe for
him to cross the ridgeline of the Wasatch Mountains below the proposed
Class B floor of 10,000 feet.
    After review of the flight tracks through proposed Area L, the FAA
agrees that the floor of Class B airspace can be raised to 10,500 feet
in this area and still safely contain instrument procedures.
    One commenter requested that the ceiling of Class B airspace remain
at 10,000 feet along the eastern edge of Area B over and east of U.S.
Highway 89 to allow hang glider operations to remain at 10,000 feet and
fly over the strong canyon winds associated with Weber Canyon.
    The FAA does not agree. A review of Salt Lake City's flight tracks
shows numerous departures below 12,000 feet in this area. A Class B
ceiling of 10,000 feet would expose these departures to VFR aircraft
transitioning through this area west of the Wasatch Mountains. In
addition, keeping one portion of the Class B airspace at 10,000 feet
would necessitate adding a new area to the proposed airspace. Designing
the Class B airspace with multiple ceiling altitudes increases the
complexity of the airspace design, especially when it is only used in
one small area. In the interest of reduced complexity, the Class B
airspace should keep a consistent ceiling altitude of 12,000 feet.
    One commenter requested that the floor of Area E be raised to 7,000
feet. The commenter stated that there is terrain in the area that is
difficult to pass over below 6,500 feet, and that there is no logical
reason for the air carriers to pass over this area below 7,500 feet.
    The FAA does not agree. After conducting a thorough review of Area
E, the FAA determined that raising the floor of Class B airspace to
7,000 feet does not safely contain Salt Lake City departure and arrival
traffic.
    One commenter requested the identification of some visual reporting
points to help identify Class B airspace northwest of South Valley
Regional Airport (U42).
    The FAA was able to locate landmarks to identify the boundary
between the proposed Class B surface area (Area A) and Area E,
including the Usana Amphitheatre, the intersection of State Route 201
and S. 8000 West St., and Interstate 15 (I-15). The western boundary is
located over the foothills of the Oquirrh Mountains and there are no
good ground references in this area. The FAA used the Wasatch VOR (TCH)
12-mile DME arc to define the Area E boundary northwest of U42, arcing
northwest until intercepting the Union Pacific railroad, then following
the railroad westbound. Other than the western boundary of Area E due
west of U42, Class B airspace should be easy to identify using
landmarks and DME.
    Two commenters were concerned with the airspace around Point of the
Mountain. One commenter requested that the Class B airspace over
restricted area R-6412 be raised to 8,100 feet to avoid congestion east
of R-6412 and Point of the Mountain. The other commenter stated that
VFR aircraft are already funneled into a narrow space and that the new
proposal will only make the situation worse.
    The FAA does not agree. The airspace around Point of the Mountain
is a congested area. The finals for runways 34R and 35 at SLC pass
approximately one mile west of Point of the Mountain. Aircraft on final
for runway 34L are at, or descending to, 8,000 feet in this area, and
why the 8,000-foot floor is proposed for Area G. With the current Class
B design, the floor of Class B airspace is 9,000 feet to the south/
southwest of Point of the Mountain and 7,000 feet to the west/
northwest. The proposal does lower the Class B airspace west/southwest
of the Point of the Mountain area from 9,000 feet to 8,000 feet, but
raises the floor of Class B airspace south

of Point of the Mountain from 9,000 feet to 10,000 feet, and the
airspace to the west/northwest from 7,000 feet to 8,000 feet. The
proposed design allows north-and south-bound VFR aircraft along I-15
and Point of the Mountain to remain 1,000 feet higher, at all times,
than the present Class B design allows.
    AOPA and three individuals objected to the east to west
transitioning through the proposed Class B airspace and one individual
requested the FAA establish a VFR corridor. AOPA also requested
published recommended altitudes, frequencies, and route of flight on
the Salt Lake City VFR Flyway chart.
    The FAA does not agree. Salt Lake City's traffic flows and
altitudes make an established VFR corridor impractical. Salt Lake City
has only one downwind leg that passes west of the airport, and
approximately 50 percent of Salt Lake City's traffic also departs to
the west. These departures would conflict with any VFR corridor design
that passed over the airport. As recommended by AOPA and the Ad Hoc
Committee, Salt Lake City will publish frequencies, altitudes, and
routes on the VFR Flyway chart to mitigate impacts to VFR aircraft. VFR
aircraft, in contact with air traffic controllers, will continue to be
able to transition through Class B airspace after receiving a
clearance.
    One commenter stated that with parachute jump operations at the
Ogden airport (OGD), there would be delays in receiving approval for a
jump through Class B airspace and delays for the jump aircraft climbing
or descending through the proposed Area N.
    The FAA does not agree. The parachute operation currently requests
permission to jump in this area and the request is approved or denied
based on traffic below the jump aircraft. If Area N is added to the
Class B airspace as proposed, there would be no change to the current
procedures. The jump aircraft can receive a Class B clearance at the
same time the jumpers receive permission for the jump, and there will
be no increased delay for the jump aircraft.
    One commenter questioned why it is necessary to have the floor of
Class B airspace at 9,000 feet in Area H, especially in the southern
portion.
    When Salt Lake City is in a north flow, IFR arrival traffic is
regularly at 9,000 feet in this area when aircraft are on downwind,
base, and final during their approaches. The VFR transition routes
referenced are departure and arrival routes for VFR aircraft operating
to and from Salt Lake City International Airport. These routes are
contained within the Class B surface area. They cross the arrival end
of the runways, then pass under the downwind westbound. A modification
of Class B airspace in these areas is not possible. These VFR routes
exist to benefit VFR aircraft and are designed to provide a shorter
route to the west. If a pilot does not want to use these routes, he or
she can always choose to avoid crossing over the water and depart north
or south along I-15 enroute to the west practice area.
    One commenter stated that local law enforcement has a tracking
program that currently operates over the top of Class B airspace at
10,500 feet and that it would make it difficult or impossible to
continue the tracking program above 12,000 feet. The individual also
contends that the sensitivity of the equipment does not allow two-way
radio communication.
    The FAA does not agree. Salt Lake City Tower and Approach control
has numerous Letters of Agreement with local law enforcement and
welcomes discussions about creating a new Letter of Agreement to
support the telemetry-tracking program. The area in which these
operations occur has numerous aircraft climbing and descending through
10,500 feet, which reinforces the need for the raised ceiling of class
B airspace.
    One commenter argued that the Mode C veil has greatly reduced
general aviation at Cedar Valley Airport (UT10).
    The FAA does not agree. UT10 is located approximately 26 miles
south of Salt Lake City International and is within the 30 mile Mode C
veil. The current Class B design has a floor of 9,000 feet, as does the
proposed design. The UT10 elevation is approximately 5,000 feet and
should be easily accessible below the 9,000 foot Class B shelf, without
requiring a Class B clearance. The proposed Class B airspace design,
and the current Mode C veil, do not limit any aircraft operations at
UT10 below 9,000 feet.
    Two commenters proposed splitting the proposed Area O into two
sectors, north and south, with a 6,500 feet area to the north and a
7,000 feet area to the south. The individuals are concerned about
commercial aircraft in a continuous flow over their houses.
    The FAA does not agree. FAA Order 7400.2 provides that Class B
airspace is to be designed to contain all instrument procedures. At the
southern edge of proposed Area O, there are two fixes on the runway 34L
and 34R ILS approaches, DUNLP and SCOER. After arrivals cross these two
fixes, they descend to 6,100 feet to meet the next crossing restriction
on the arrival. The instrument approaches IFR aircraft are flying will
not change and raising the floor of Class B airspace above 6,000 feet
in this area will not contain these two instrument procedures as
required.
    AOPA contends that raising the ceiling of Class B airspace to
12,000 feet provides no clear operational safety benefits for any
specific user, but will have a detrimental impact on general aviation
safety and efficiency.
    The FAA does not agree. There are approximately 1,000 IFR
operations a day that operate at and below 12,000 feet within 30 miles
of SLC. The Ad Hoc Committee extensively discussed raising the ceiling
to 12,000 feet and a consensus of that group supported the change. The
general aviation members of the committee endorsed raising the ceiling
to 12,000 feet, and they are the group most familiar with VFR flight in
the area.
    It should be noted that FAA Order 7400.2 provides that, ``The outer
limits of the airspace shall not exceed a 30-nautical mile (NM) radius
from the primary airport. This 30-NM radius generally will be divided
into three concentric circles. The floor of the area between 20 NM and
30 NM shall be at an altitude consistent with approach control arrival
and departure procedures. It is expected that this floor would normally
be between 5,000 and 6,000 feet above airport elevation.'' Using this
criterion, the floor of the Salt Lake City Class B airspace between 20
and 30 miles should be between 9,227 feet and 10,227 feet. Presently
the ceiling of the Salt Lake City Class B airspace is 10,000 feet, and
does not contain existing arrival and departure procedures as required.
Of the 30 airports with Class B airspace in the United States, SLC has
the second highest field elevation. The current height of Salt Lake
City Class B airspace rises 5,773 feet above ground level, the lowest
of any in the nation. With the requirement to climb departures to
10,000 feet, this leaves ATC with no available altitudes to contain
downwind arrivals in Class B airspace. An increase to 12,000 feet would
increase the Class B airspace to 7,773 feet above ground level, which
is still lower than the national average of 8,373 feet.
    Commenters from the Soaring Society of America (SSA) stated that
the vertical extension would require more IFR traffic to exit the side
of controlled airspace and that the FAA should mandate that all IFR
aircraft enter and exit through the top of Class B airspace,
referencing FAA Order 7210.3, section 11-1-5. This section states that
arrivals and departures should enter and exit the top of Class B
airspace, not shall enter and exit through the top of Class B airspace.
A further examination of FAA

Order 7210.3 defines the terms ``should'' and ``shall''. Shall
indicates a procedure is mandatory, should indicates a procedure is
recommended.
    FAA Order 7210.3, section 11-1-5 also states that, ``* * * each
Class B airspace shall reflect the most efficient and reasonable
configuration to contain large turbine powered aircraft while achieving
a higher level of safety.'' A further examination of the arrival
traffic on January 1, 2011, showed that of the 119 arrivals that were
at or below 12,000 feet, 74 were large turbine-powered aircraft, or 21
percent.
    Commenters from the SSA also stated that even a modest increase in
the ceiling height of the SLC Class B airspace will result in a
reduction in the number of sailplane flights that are able to
transition above the Class B airspace.
    The FAA analyzed actual Salt Lake City arrival and departure tracks
for July 16, 2010, as it was the hottest day of 2010 at 102 degrees.
The FAA selected that date since aircraft climb slower on hot days and
this would represent the worst-case departure scenario. Of the 510
departures on that day, 31 departures exited the side of the proposed
Class B airspace, which is 6 percent of all departures. The FAA also
analyzed January 1, 2011, which was the coldest winter day in 2010/2011
with an average daily temperature of 37.2 degrees. Of the 354 arrivals
on that day, 119 arrivals were at or below 12,000 feet before they were
contained in the lateral confines of the proposed SLC Class B airspace,
which is 32 percent of all arrivals.
    Raising the ceiling of Class B airspace to 12,000 feet means that
83 percent of all IFR operations, including large turbine powered and
smaller aircraft will depart and arrive through the ceiling of Class B
airspace. Raising the ceiling to 12,000 feet is the most efficient and
reasonable configuration for Salt Lake's Class B airspace.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the SLC Class B airspace
area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) would raise the
existing ceiling from 10,000 feet to 12,000 feet in order to provide
additional airspace that is needed to contain aircraft conducting
instrument approach operations within the confines of Class B airspace.
Additionally, the proposed modifications would better segregate IFR
aircraft arriving/departing SLC and VFR aircraft operating in the
vicinity of the Salt Lake Class B airspace area. The proposed
modifications to the SLC Class B airspace area are:
    Area A. Area A would be redefined from the surface to 12,000 feet.
The northern boundary would be moved south an average of 2 miles. This
would allow VFR aircraft to transition westbound sooner than is
currently available and will relieve some congestion between the Hill
Air Force Base (AFB) Class D airspace and Salt Lake City's Class B
surface area airspace. As recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee, the
surface area north of the Skypark Airport (BTF) would move to the west
to relieve congestion between the Class B surface area airspace and the
Wasatch Mountains to the east. Also, the surface area east of South
Valley Regional Airport (U42) would be removed and combined with the
6,000-foot shelf over and to the southeast of U42. IFR arrivals and
departures at Salt Lake airport are above 6,100 feet in this area and
would be contained by a 6,000-foot shelf (see Area D).
    Area B. Area B would incorporate portions of existing Areas B and
J, with a floor at 7,800 feet and the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet.
The western boundary would change from the I-BNT 25-mile DME arc to the
TCH 20-mile DME arc. Raising the floor of existing Area B from 7,600
feet to 7,800 feet matches the existing Class B airspace area over Hill
AFB, and allows VFR aircraft operating in the area to climb sooner than
is currently possible.
    Area C. Area C would be a new area in existing Class B airspace,
with the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet, to reduce congestion in the
airspace between the Hill AFB Class D airspace area and the SLC Class B
surface area airspace. This area would incorporate a portion of
existing Area A, with the floor raised from the surface to 6,000 feet,
to allow VFR aircraft easier access to transit north of SLC below the
Class B airspace area.
    Area D. Area D would remain similar to the existing Area D;
expanded laterally into existing Class B airspace with the ceiling
raised to 12,000 feet. This area would incorporate a portion of
existing Area A, raising the floor from the surface to 6,000 feet, to
allow VFR aircraft easier access to and from U42. The southern boundary
would ensure aircraft are fully contained within Class B airspace while
flying Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches to runways 34L and
34R.
    The Salt Lake Valley has several areas along the west side where
the terrain penetrates the floor of existing Class B airspace, making
the airspace in those areas unuseable by IFR traffic. As such, the
western boundary of the Class B airspace in those areas could be moved
to the east without compromising flight safety. The following
descriptions of proposed areas E, F, G and H reflect this boundary
shift to the east. Since there are not convenient visual landmarks in
this area, the western boundaries of the proposed Class B airspace sub-
areas are best defined using longitude 112[deg]07'00'' W.
    Area E. Area E would combine two existing Class B airspace sub-
areas (Areas C and K) into one with the floor established at 6,500 feet
and the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet. The southern boundary would
extend south slightly using the TCH 16-mile DME arc. The southwest
portion of Class B airspace boundary would be relocated east slightly
using the TCH 12-mile DME arc to eliminate terrain penetrating the
floor of Class B airspace. The western boundary defined by the TCH
13.5-mile DME arc instead of the I-BNT 13-mile DME arc, to the to
contain IFR departures.
    Area F. Area F would be a new area in existing Class B airspace
(Area E), with the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet and the northern
boundary defined by the TCH 16-mile DME arc instead of the I-BNT 11 DME
arc. The southern boundary would move south slightly to fully contain
the runway 34L and 34R ILS approaches.
    Area G. Area G would combine the current Areas F and G into one
with the floor established at 8,000 feet and the ceiling raised to
12,000 feet. The southern boundary would be established approximately
four miles south of the existing southern boundary of existing Areas F
and G to allow IFR traffic during Simultaneous Independent ILS
approaches to join final closer to the airport and improve efficiency.
The terrain in this area is mostly below 7,000 feet and shouldn't
restrict VFR aircraft from climbing south bound below the Class B
airspace area.
    Area H. Area H would remain similar to the current Area H with the
floor at 9,000 feet, but the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet. This area
would also expand slightly to the west to use the same longitude for
its boundary as is used in Area G description, for simplicity, and
would redefine the southern boundary further north by using the TCH VOR
33 DME arc.
    Area I. Area I would be a new area east of area H, with a floor of
10,000 feet and a ceiling of 12,000 feet, designed to capture arrivals
from the southeast. This would be a commonly used corridor for north
arrivals, and would aid air traffic control in sequencing.

    Area J. Area J would be a new area over the north end of the
Oquirrh Mountains with the floor established at 11,000 feet and the
ceiling at 12,000 feet. This area would contain IFR departure traffic
climbing southbound, as well as contain arrival traffic being vectored
to the downwind.
    Area K. Area K would be a new area redefining a portion of the
current Area B. This area would raise the floor of Class B airspace to
8,600 feet and raise the ceiling to 12,000 feet to provide more
altitudes for VFR aircraft.
    Area L. Area L would redefine a portion of the current Area I to
allow for north-flow departures from SLC to climb and turn eastbound on
course. Area L would be established with a floor raised to 10,500 feet
and the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet. Currently, there are two
geographically separate airspace areas, 9,000 feet to 10,000 feet, that
collectively comprise area I. One area is located northeast of SLC
Airport, and the other area is located to the southeast. Both of these
existing Class B airspace areas have terrain that penetrates the floor
of the areas, with the southeastern area actually having terrain that
extends through the ceiling of the area as well. Since the southern
portion of existing Area I is only occasionally used for IFR aircraft,
and is almost never used for large turbo jet aircraft, this portion of
Area I would be deleted completely without impact to flight safety.
Additionally, the eastern boundary of this new area would be moved to
the west along the ridgeline of the Wasatch Mountains and still contain
IFR departures turning eastbound.
    Area M. Area M would remain similar to the existing Area M, with
the floor lowered to 9,000 feet and the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet.
The lateral boundaries would extend slightly with the northern boundary
extended north to the TCH 26-mile DME arc and the western boundary
extended west one mile to ensure the runway 16L/1R downwind is
contained within Class B airspace during Simultaneous Independent ILS
approaches.
    Area N. Area N would be a new area, with the floor established at
10,000 feet and the ceiling at 12,000 feet, intended to contain
aircraft flying instrument approaches to SLC runway 17. Runway 17 is
used extensively, often designated as a main arrival or departure
runway, in the various SLC runway use plans. Aircraft are regularly
established on a runway 17 final 30 miles from the airport and
descending through 12,000 feet in this area.
    Area O. Area O would be a new subarea description that would lower
a portion of existing Class B airspace in this area from 7,600 feet to
7,500 feet. Lowering the Class B airspace area floor in this area would
allow aircraft flying the runway 16R and 16L ILS approaches to descend
to 7,500 feet and provide containment for them throughout the
instrument approach procedures. Area O would also incorporate airspace
north and east of SLC, currently Area L.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirement associated with this
proposed rule.

Economic Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this Order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    After consultation with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders
that participated in the Ad Hoc Committee to develop the
recommendations contained in this proposal, and a review of the
recommendations and comments, the FAA expects that this proposed rule
would result in minimal cost. The FAA is taking this action to improve
the flow of air traffic, enhance safety, and reduce the potential for
midair collision in the SLC Class B airspace.
    This NPRM would enhance safety, reduce the potential for a midair
collision in the SLC area and would improve the flow of air traffic. As
such, we estimate a minimal impact with substantial positive net
benefits. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about
the FAA determination of minimal impact. FAA has, therefore, determined
that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.

    The FAA believes the proposal would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities as the economic impact
is expected to be minimal. We request comments from the potentially
affected small businesses. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it would enhance safety and is not considered an unnecessary obstacle
to trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $140.8 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM UT B Salt Lake City, UT [Modified]

Salt Lake City International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 40[deg]47'18'' N., long. 111[deg]58'40'' W.)
Salt Lake City VORTAC, (TCH)
    (Lat. 40[deg]51'01'' N., long. 111[deg]58'55'' W.)
Hill AFB (HIF)
    (Lat. 41[deg]07'26'' N., long. 111[deg]58'23'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That area extending upward from the surface to and
including 12,000 MSL, within an area bounded by a line beginning at
the TCH 20[deg](T)/004[deg](M) radial 6.6-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]57'14'' N., long. 111[deg]55'54'' W.; thence south to the
intersection of Redwood Rd. and W. 500 South St. at the TCH VORTAC
049[deg](T)/033[deg](M) radial 3.1-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]53'02''
N., long. 111[deg]55'48'' W.; thence south to intercept Center St.
at the TCH 102[deg](T)/086[deg](M) radial 2.3-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]50'32'' N., long. 111[deg]55'57'' W.; thence east along
Center St. to intercept the 4.3-mile DME radius of the Salt Lake
City International Airport and Interstate 15 (I-15) at the TCH
099[deg](T)/083[deg](M) radial 3-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]50'32'' N.,
long. 111[deg]54'56'' W.; thence clockwise along the 4.3-mile DME
radius of the Salt Lake City International Airport to intercept I-15
at the TCH 151[deg](T)/135[deg](M) radial 7.3-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]44'37'' N., long. 111[deg]54'15'' W.; thence south on I-15 to
intercept W. 5300 South St. at the TCH 163[deg](T)/148[deg](M)
radial 12.3-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]39'17'' N., long.
111[deg]54'06'' W.; thence west to Usana Amphitheatre at the TCH
192[deg](T)/176[deg](M) radial 11.8-mile DME at lat 40[deg]39'26''
N., long. 112[deg]02'14'' W.; thence northwest to the intersection
of State Route 201 (SR-201) and S. 8000 West St. at the TCH
210[deg](T)/194[deg](M) radial 9.1-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]43'06''
N., long. 112[deg]04'56'' W.; thence northwest to intercept
Interstate 80 (I-80) at the TCH 239[deg](T)/223[deg](M) radial 9-
mile DME at lat. 40[deg]46'22'' N., long. 112[deg]09'04'' W.; thence
north to a point southeast of Seagull Point on Antelope Island at
the TCH 304[deg](T)/288[deg](M) radial 9.3-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]56'12'' N., long. 112[deg]09'03'' W.; thence east to the
point of beginning.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 7,800 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the TCH 265[deg](T)/249[deg](M) radial 12-mile DME at
lat. 40[deg]49'57'' N., long 112[deg]14'40'' W.; thence west along
the TCH 265[deg](T)/249[deg](M) radial to the 20-mile DME arc at
lat. 40[deg]49'13'' N., long. 112[deg]25'09'' W.; thence clockwise
along the TCH 20-mile DME arc to intercept the 4.3-mile DME radius
of Hill AFB at the TCH 009[deg](T)/354[deg](M) radial 20-mile DME at
lat. 41[deg]10'47'' N., long 111[deg]54'48'' W.; thence clockwise
along the 4.3-mile DME radius of Hill AFB to intercept W. 1700 South
St. at the TCH 347[deg](T)/331[deg](M) radial 14.7-mile DME at lat.
41[deg]05'21'' N., long. 112[deg]03'22'' W.; thence west on W. 1700
South St. to a point at the TCH 329[deg](T)/313[deg](M) radial 16.8-
mile DME at lat. 41[deg]05'22'' N., long. 112[deg]10'20'' W.; thence
south to a point at the TCH 316[deg](T)/300[deg](M) radial 11.6-mile
DME at lat. 40[deg]59'22N., long. 112[deg]09'27'' W.; thence south
to a point southeast of Seagull Point on Antelope Island at the TCH
304[deg](T)/288[deg](M) radial 9.3-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]56'12''
N., long. 112[deg]09'03'' W.; thence southwest to the point of
beginning.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the TCH 316[deg](T)/300[deg](M) radial 11.6-mile DME at
lat. 40[deg]59'22 N., long. 112[deg]09'27' W.; thence east to
intercept I-15 at the TCH 013[deg](T)/357[deg](M) radial 9.8-mile
DME at lat. 41[deg]00'32'' N., long. 111[deg]55'59'' W.; thence
south to the TCH 020[deg](T)/004[deg](M) radial 6.6-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]57'14'' N., long 111[deg]55'54'' W.; thence west to a point
southeast of Seagull Point on Antelope Island at the TCH
304[deg](T)/288[deg](M) radial 9.3-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]56'12''
N., long. 112[deg]09'03'' W.; thence north to the point of
beginning.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the Usana Amphitheatre at the TCH 192[deg](T)/
176[deg](M) radial 11.8-mile DME, lat. 40[deg]39'26'' N., long.
112[deg]02'14'' W.; thence east to the intersection of I-15 and W.
5300 South St. at the TCH 163[deg](T)/147[deg](M) radial 12.3-mile
DME at lat. 40[deg]39'17'' N., long. 111[deg]54'06'' W.' thence
south along I-15 to the TCH 169[deg](T)/153[deg](M) radial 20.7-mile
DME at lat. 40[deg]30'43'' N., long. 111[deg]53'31'' W.; thence west
to the TCH 184[deg](T)/168[deg](M) radial 20.4-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]30'38'' N., long. 112[deg]00'33'' W.; thence north to the TCH
184[deg](T)/168[deg](M) radial 16-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]35'03''
N., long. 112[deg]00'33'' W.; thence clockwise along the TCH 16-mile
DME arc to intercept State Route 48 (SR-48) at the TCH 189[deg](T)/
173[deg](M) radial at lat. 40[deg]35'13'' N., long. 112[deg]02'18''
W.; thence north to the point of beginning.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 6,500 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of SR-48 and the TCH 16-mile DME arc
at the TCH 189[deg](T)/173[deg](M) radial 16-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]35'13'' N., long. 112[deg]02'18'' W., thence clockwise along
the TCH 16-mile DME arc to intercept the TCH 203[deg](T)187[deg](M)
radial at lat. 40[deg]36'14'' N., long. 112[deg]07'00'' W., thence
north along long. 112[deg]07'00'' W. to intercept the TCH 12-mile
DME arc at the TCH 211[deg](T)/195[deg](M) radial 12-mile DME at
lat.

40[deg]40'42'' N., long. 112[deg]07'00'' W., thence clockwise along
the TCH 12-mile DME arc to intercept the railroad tracks at the TCH
233[deg](T)/217[deg](M) radial 12-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]43'43''
N., long. 112[deg]11'27'' W.thence west along the railroad tracks to
intercept the TCH 13.5-mile DME arc at the TCH 236[deg](T)/
220[deg](M) radial 13.5-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]43'27'' N., long.
112[deg]13'38'' W., thence clockwise along the TCH 13.5-mile DME arc
to intercept the TCH 265[deg](T)/249[deg](M) radial at lat.
40[deg]49'49'' N., long. 112[deg]16'38'' W.; thence east along the
TCH VORTAC 265[deg](T)/249[deg](M) radial to the TCH 265[deg](T)/
249[deg](M) radial 12-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]49'57'' N., long.
112[deg]14'40'' W.; thence northeast to a point southeast of Seagull
Point on Antelope Island at the TCH 304[deg](T)/288[deg](M) radial
9.3-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]56'12'' N., long. 112[deg]09'03'' W.;
thence south to I-80 at the TCH 239[deg](T)/223[deg](M) radial 9-
mile DME at lat. 40[deg]46'22'' N., long. 112[deg]09'04'' W.; thence
southeast to the intersection of SR-201 and S. 8000 West St. at the
TCH 210[deg](T)/194[deg](M) radial 9.1-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]43'06'' N., long. 112[deg]04'56'' W.; thence southeast to
Usana Amphitheatre at the TCH 192[deg](T)/176[deg](M) radial 11.8-
mile DME at lat 40[deg]39'26'' N., long. 112[deg]02'14'' W.; thence
south to the point of beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the TCH 184[deg](T)/168[deg](M) radial 16-mile DME at
lat. 40[deg]35'03'' N., long. 112[deg]00'33'' W.; thence clockwise
along the TCH 16-mile DME arc to intercept the TCH 203[deg](T)/
187[deg](M) radial at lat. 40[deg]36'14'' N., long. 112[deg]07'00''
W.; thence south along long. 112[deg]07'00'' W. to a point at the
TCH 197[deg](T)/181[deg](M) radial 21.4-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]30'55'' N., long. 112[deg]07'00'' W.; thence east to a point
at the TCH 184[deg](T)/168[deg](M) radial 20.4-mile DME at
lat.40[deg]30'38'' N., long. 112[deg]00'33'' W.; thence north to the
point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 8,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at a point on I-15 at the TCH 169[deg](T)/153[deg](M)
radial 20.7-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]30'43'' N., long.
111[deg]53'31'' W.; thence south along I-15 to intercept the TCH
173[deg](T)/157[deg](M) radial 24.1-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]27'05''
N., long. 111[deg]54'51'' W.; thence south along the TCH
173[deg](T)/157[deg](M) radial to a point at the TCH 173[deg](T)/
157[deg](M) radial 27-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]24'12'' N., long.
111[deg]54'36'' W.; thence west to a point at the TCH 193[deg](T)/
177[deg](M) radial 27.6-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]24'07'' N., long.
112[deg]7'00'' W.; thence north to a point at the TCH VORTAC
197[deg](T)/181[deg](M) radial 21-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]30'55''
N., long. 112[deg]07'00'' W.; thence east to the point of beginning.
Excluding R-6412, when active.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 9,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at a point at the TCH 193[deg](T)/177[deg](M) radial 27.6-
mile DME at lat. 40[deg]27'07'' N., long. 112[deg]07'00'' W.; thence
south along long. 112[deg]07'00'' W. to intercept the TCH 33-mile
DME arc at the TCH 191[deg](T)/175[deg](M) radial 33-mile DME at
lat. 40[deg]18'35'' N., long. 112[deg]07'00'' W., thence counter
clockwise along the TCH 33-mile DME arc to a point at the TCH
173[deg](T)/157[deg](M) radial 33-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]18'14''
N., long. 111[deg]53'40'' W.; thence north to a point at the TCH
173[deg](T)157[deg](M) radial 27-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]24'12'' N.,
long. 111[deg]54'36'' W.; thence west to the point of beginning.
Excluding R-6412, when active.
    Area I. That airspace extending upward from 10,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning on I-15 at the TCH 173[deg](T)/157[deg](M) radial 24.1-
mile DME at lat. 40[deg]27'05'' N., long. 111[deg]54'51'' W.; thence
south along I-15 to intercept the TCH 33-mile DME arc at the TCH
160[deg](T)/144[deg](M) radial 33-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]19'54''
N., long. 111[deg]44'26'' W.; thence clockwise along the TCH 33-mile
DME arc to the TCH 173[deg](T)/157[deg](M) radial at lat.
40[deg]18'14'' N., long. 111[deg]53'40'' W.; thence north along the
TCH 173[deg](T)/157[deg](M) radial to the point of beginning.
    Area J. That airspace extending upward from 11,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at a point where the TCH 20-mile DME arc intercepts
railroad tracks at the TCH 238[deg](T)/222[deg](M) radial 20-mile
DME at lat. 40[deg]40' 22'' N., long. 112[deg]21'12'' W.; thence
east along the railroad tracks to intercept the TCH 12-mile DME arc
at the TCH 233[deg](T)/217[deg](M) radial 12-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]43'43'' N., long. 112[deg]11'27'' W.; thence counter
clockwise along the TCH 12-mile DME arc to a point at the TCH
211[deg](T)/195[deg](M) radial 12-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]40' 42''
N., long. 112[deg]07'00'' W.; thence south along long.
112[deg]07'00'' W. to intercept a point at the TCH 20-mile DME arc
at the TCH 198[deg](T)/182[deg](M) radial 20-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]31'59'' N., long. 112[deg]07'00'' W.; thence clockwise along
the TCH 20-mile DME arc to the point of beginning.
    Area K. That airspace extending upward from 8,600 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at a point at the TCH 265[deg](T)/249[deg](M) radial 13.5-
mile DME at lat. 40[deg]49'49'' N., long. 112[deg]16'38'' W.; thence
west along the TCH 265[deg](T)/249[deg](M) radial to intercept the
TCH 20-mile DME arc at lat. 40[deg]49'13'' N., long. 112[deg]25'09''
W.; thence counter clockwise along the TCH 20-mile DME arc to
intercept the railroad tracks at the TCH 238[deg](T)/222[deg](M)
radial 20-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]40'22'' N., long. 112[deg]21'12''
W.; thence east along the railroad tracks to intercept the TCH 13.5-
mile DME arc at the TCH 236[deg](T)/220[deg](M) radial 13.5-mile DME
at lat. 40[deg]43'27'' N., long. 112[deg]13'38'' W.; thence
clockwise along the TCH 13.5-mile DME arc to the point of beginning.
    Area L. That airspace extending upward from 10,500 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the ridge line of the Wasatch
Mountains and Interstate 84 (I-84) at the TCH 016[deg](T)/
360[deg](M) radial 18-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]08'17'' N., long.
111[deg]52'18'' W.; thence west along I-84 to intercept the 4.3-mile
radius of Hill AFB at the TCH 015[deg](T)/359[deg](M) radial 17.9-
mile DME at lat. 41[deg]08'16'' N., long. 111[deg]52'48'' W.; thence
clockwise along the 4.3-mile radius of Hill AFB to intercept U.S.
Highway 89 at the TCH 014[deg](T)/358[deg](M) radial 13.6-mile DME
at lat. 41[deg]04'11'' N., long. 111[deg]54'39'' W.; thence south
along U.S. Highway 89 to intercept I-15 at the TCH 024[deg](T)/
008[deg](M) radial 9-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]59'14'' N., long.
111[deg]54'05'' W.; thence south along I-15 to a point at the TCH
072[deg](T)/056[deg](M) radial 4-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]52'16'' N.,
long. 111[deg]53'50'' W.; thence east along lat. 40[deg]52'16'' N.
to a point at the TCH 081[deg](T)/065[deg](M) radial 8-mile DME at
lat. 40[deg]52'16'' N., long. 111[deg]48'30'' W.; thence north along
long. 111[deg]48'30'' W. to intercept the ridge line of the Wasatch
Mountains at the TCH 059[deg](T)/043[deg](M) radial 9.2-mile DME at
lat. 40[deg]55'45'' N., long. 111[deg]48'30'' W.; thence north along
the ridge line of the Wasatch Mountains to the point of beginning.
    Area M. That airspace extending upward from 9,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of I-15 and the TCH 26-mile DME arc at
the TCH 356[deg](T)/340[deg](M) radial 26-mile DME at lat.
41[deg]16'58'' N., long. 112[deg]01'33'' W.; thence counter
clockwise along the TCH 26-mile DME arc to a point at the TCH
338[deg](T)322[deg](M) radial 26-mile DME, lat. 41[deg]15'07'' N.,
long. 112[deg]11'50'' W.; thence south to intercept the TCH 20-mile
DME arc at the TCH 333[deg](T)/317[deg](M) radial 20-mile DME at
lat. 41[deg]08'50'' N., long. 112[deg]10'56'' W.; thence clockwise
along the TCH 20-mile DME arc to intercept I-15 at the TCH
356[deg](T)/340[deg](M) radial 20-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]11'00''
N., long. 112[deg]00'49'' W.; thence north along I-15 to the point
of beginning.
    Area N. That airspace extending upward from 10,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of I-15 and the TCH 26-mile DME arc at
the TCH 356[deg](T)/340[deg](M) radial 26-mile DME at lat
41[deg]16'58'' N., long. 112[deg]01'33'' W.; thence clockwise to
intercept North Mountain Rd. at the TCH 003[deg](T)/347[deg](M)
radial 26-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]16'59'' N., long. 111[deg]56'57''
W.; thence south on North Mountain Rd., which turns into Harrison
Blvd., to intercept the TCH 20-mile DME arc at the TCH 004[deg](T)/
348[deg](M) radial 20-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]11'00'' N., long.
111[deg]56'56'' W.; thence counter clockwise to intercept 1-15 at
the TCH 356[deg](T)/340[deg](M) radial 20-mile DME at lat.
41[deg]11'00'' N., long. 112[deg]00'49'' W.; thence north along I-15
to the point of beginning.
    Area O. That airspace extending upward from 7,500 feet M5L to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 89 and a 4.3-mile
radius from Hill AFB at the TCH 014[deg](T)/358[deg](M) radial 13.6-
mile DME at lat. 41[deg]04'11'' N., long. 111[deg]54'39'' W.; thence
clockwise along 4.3-mile radius from Hill AFB to intercept 1700 So.
St. at the TCH 347[deg](T)/331[deg](M) radial 14.8-mile DME at lat.
41[deg]05'21'' N., long. 112[deg]03'22'' W.; thence west along W.
1700 South St. to a point at the TCH 329[deg](T)/313[deg](M) radial
16.8-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]05'22'' N., long. 112[deg]10'20'' W.;
thence south to a point at the TCH 316[deg](T)/300[deg](M) radial
11.6-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]59'22'' N., long. 112[deg]09'27'' W.;
thence east to intercept I-15 at the TCH 013[deg](T)/357[deg](M)
radial 9.8-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]00'32'' N., long. 111[deg]55'59''
W.; thence south to a point at the TCH 020[deg](T)/004[deg](M)
radial 6.6-mile DME at

lat. 40[deg]57'14'' N., long. 111[deg]55'54'' W.; thence south to
the intersection of Redwood Rd. and W. 500 South St. at the TCH
049[deg](T)/033[deg](M) radial 3.1-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]53'02''
N., long. 111[deg]55'48'' W.; thence south to intercept Center St.
at the TCH 102[deg](T)/086[deg](M) radial 2.3-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]50'32'' N., long. 111[deg]55'57'' W.; thence east along
Center St. to intercept the 4.3-mile DME radius of the Salt Lake
City International Airport and I-15 at the TCH 099[deg](T)/
083[deg](M) radial 3-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]50'32'' N., long.
111[deg]54'56'' W.; thence north along I-15 to intercept U.S.
Highway 89 at the TCH 024[deg](T)/008[deg](M) radial 9-mile DME at
lat. 40[deg]59'14'' N., long. 111[deg]54'05'' W.; thence north along
U.S. Highway 89 to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 2011.
Gary Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU11.000

[FR Doc. 2011-21293 Filed 8-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5791]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12711-005]

Ocean Renewable Power Company Maine, LLC; Notice of Staff
Participation in Meeting

    On February 15, 2012, Office of Energy Projects staff will
participate in a meeting with representatives from Ocean Renewable
Power Company Maine, LLC at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Washington, DC office to discuss the draft license
articles provided in the Commission's environmental assessment issued
on January 4, 2012, for the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project No.
12711.
    A teleconference line will be made available for parties wishing to
participate. Details on the teleconference are provided below:

Date: February 15, 2012.
Time: 1 p.m.
Call-in Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Meeting ID: 12711.
Password: 12711.

    For further information please contact Timothy Konnert at (202)
502-6359, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 31, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2571 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57190]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3569-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Homeland Security
(DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Mississippi (FEMA-3569-EM), dated August 28, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 8, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 1, 2021.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22346 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 108 (Thursday, June 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 34430]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15011-000]

Renewable Energy Aggregators, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On October 11, 2019, Renewable Energy Aggregators, Inc. filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Delaney Pumped Storage Project (Delaney Project or project) to be
located near the town of Tonopah, Maricopa County, Arizona. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A newly
constructed upper reservoir with an earthen/roller-compacted concrete
dam and a surface area of 150 acres with a storage capacity of 11,525
acre-feet of water; (2) a newly constructed lower reservoir of 2,000
acres with a storage capacity of approximately 15,250 acre-feet; (3)
two 22,000-foot-long, 19-foot-diameter penstocks; (4) a powerhouse with
dimensions of 750 feet long by 175 feet high by 70 feet wide containing
as many as two ternary style pump/generating units; (5) two 3,000-foot-
long, 21-foot-diameter tailrace tunnels; and (6) a connection to the
existing Delaney Substation within the project boundary. The estimated
annual generation of the Delaney Project would be 864,000 megawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Adam Rousselle, Renewable Energy
Aggregators, 2113 Middle Street, Suite 201, Sullivan's Island, South
Carolina 29482; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Rebecca Kipp; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-15011-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15011) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 29, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12052 Filed 6-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30804-30806]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0140]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Columbia River, Vancouver, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Columbia River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near
Vancouver, WA during a high-speed hydroplane boat testing event on May
20, 2022. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in
the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia
River or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on May 20,
2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0140 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Sean Murphy, Waterways Management Division,
Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On January 19, 2022, the H1 Unlimited notified the Coast Guard that
it will be conducting a hydroplane testing event from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
on May 20, 2022. The hydroplane event will consist of individual
testing of 10 hydroplane vessels in between the I-5 and I-205 bridges
on the Columbia River. The Captain of the Port Columbia (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the high-speed
hydroplane boat testing would be a safety concern for anyone within the
regulated area.
    In response, on March 30, 2022 the Coast Guard published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Columbia River,
Vancouver, WA (87 FR 18757). There we stated why we issued the NPRM,
and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this
fireworks display. During the comment

period that ended May 2, 2022, we received two comments.
    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. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the high-speed
hydroplane boat testing. The Coast Guard's limited notice of the
parameters of the high-speed boat testing makes it necessary to
expedite the effective date of this rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector
Columbia River (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards
associated with high-speed hydroplane boat testing would be a safety
concern for anyone within the regulated area. The purpose of this rule
is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety
zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published May
30, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    One comment expressed concern that the waterway would be completely
taken over for use by a private company. However, the safety zone only
covers a specific duration of 7 hours for a single day. Vessels that
need or want to enter the safety zone may seek permission from the COTP
to do so. Another comment raises concerns about the environmental
impact of the boat racing event itself, conflating the event and the
safety zone. Due to the size and length of time the zone will be in
effect, the safety zone will have a miminal expected impact on the
environment.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on
May 20, 2022. The safety zone covers all navigable waters of the
Columbia River, from surface to bottom, starting approximately 700
yards east of the I-5 bridge from shoreline to shoreline heading east
for approximately 1.2 miles; specifically beginning at the shoreline at
45[deg]36'40.7'' N, 122[deg]40'11.2'' W, northeast to 45[deg]37'08.7''
N, 122[deg]39'53.8'' W, southeast to 45[deg]36'41.3'' N,
122[deg]38'32.0'' W, thence southwest to 45[deg]36'15.8'' N,
122[deg]38'53.0'' W, and along the shoreline back to the beginning
point. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety
of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the
scheduled 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. high-speed hydroplane boat testing. No
vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and the duration of the safety zone. The safety zone will
impact a 1.2 mile stretch of the Columbia River during the hydroplane
boat testing for 7 hours and thus is limited in scope. The Coast Guard
will issue a Broadcase Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(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 a
safety zone lasting 7 hours that would prohibit entry within an
approximate 1.2 miles of the Columbia River for the duration of a high-
speed hydroplane testing event. It is categorically excluded from
further review under L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

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:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0140 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0140   Safety Zone; Columbia River, Vancouver, WA

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Columbia River, from surface to bottom, starting
approximately 700 yards east of the I-5 bridge from shoreline to
shoreline heading east for approximately 1.2 miles; specifically
beginning at the shoreline at 45[deg]36'40.7'' N, 122[deg]40'11.2'' W,
northeast to 45[deg]37'08.7'' N, 122[deg]39'53.8'' W, southeast to
45[deg]36'41.3'' N, 122[deg]38'32.0'' W, thence southwest to
45[deg]36'15.8'' N, 122[deg]38'53.0'' W, and along the shoreline back
to the beginning point.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the
regulations in this section.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as a participant in the testing event.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Sector Columbia River
Command Center on Channel 16 VHF-FM. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on May 20, 2022. It will be subject to enforcement
this entire period unless the COTP determines it is no longer needed,
in which case the Coast Guard will inform mariners via Notice to
Mariners.

    Dated: May 13, 2022.
G.M. Bailey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Sector
Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2022-10835 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80361-80362]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32961]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719, FRL 9508-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Pretreatment Program
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0719, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Identify Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2008-0719 in the subject line), or by mail to: Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Letnes, State and Regional
Branch, Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53123), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: National Pretreatment Program (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR Number 0002.15, OMB Control Number 2040-0009.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on 12/31/2011. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with
managing and implementing the National Pretreatment Program as mandated
under CWA sections 402(a) and 402(b) and 307(b). This ICR includes all
existing tasks under the National Pretreatment Program, as amended by
the EPA's Streamlining Rule.
    EPA's Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) in the Office of Water
(OW) is responsible for the management of the pretreatment program. The
CWA requires EPA to develop national pretreatment standards to control
discharges from Industrial Users (IUs) into Publicly-Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs). These standards limit the level of certain pollutants
allowed in non-domestic wastewater that is discharged to a POTW. EPA
administers the pretreatment program through the NPDES permit program.
Under the NPDES permit program, EPA may approve State or individual
POTW implementation of the pretreatment standards at their respective
levels. Data

collected from IUs during implementation of the pretreatment program
include the mass, frequency, and content of IU discharges and IU
schedules for installing pretreatment equipment. Data also include
actual or anticipated IU discharges of wastes that violate pretreatment
standards, have the potential to cause problems at the POTW, or are
considered hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). OWM uses the data collected under the pretreatment program to
monitor and enforce compliance with the pretreatment regulations, as
well as to authorize program administration at the State or Local
(POTW) level. States and POTWs applying for approval of their
pretreatment programs submit data concerning their legal, procedural,
and administrative bases for establishing such programs. This
information may include surveys of IUs, local limits for pollutant
concentrations, and schedules for completion of major project
requirements. IUs and POTWs submit written reports to the approved
State or EPA. These data may then be entered into the NPDES databases
by the approved State or by EPA.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 74.0
hours per respondent per year, or 18.35 hours per response. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Affected entities: Various industrial categories, publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), Local and State governments.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 24,411 (36 States,
1,548 POTWs and 22,827 industrial users).
    Frequency of response: On occasion, semi-annually, annually.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 4.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,806,517 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $77,647,536. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $75,328,623 and an estimated cost of
$2,318,913 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.
    Change in Burden: There is an increase of 9,430 (0.5%) hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the
ICR currently approved by OMB. Most of the increase in burden is
attributable to the transfer of the burden associated with Pretreatment
Compliance Inspection (PCI) from the NPDES Program ICR (OMB Control No.
2040-0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.20). There are also additional burden
increases in other areas. For example, the number of state respondents
has increased from 35 to 36, and the number of approved programs has
increased to 1,548 from 1,512.
    However, the increases in burden are partially offset by a decrease
in burden attributable to the decrease in the number of SIUs. EPA
revised the estimated number of SIUs and pretreatment programs after
extensive consultation with the EPA regions and a thorough examination
of PCS data. The revised number of SIUs drives the decrease in
respondent burden because SIUs constitute the bulk of respondents. This
ICR shows a shift in burden from POTWs to States as a consequence of
EPA's updated estimates of SIUs regulated by POTWs and States. However,
this is not the result of programmatic changes but simply a reflection
of more accurate information about the implementation of the
pretreatment program.

    Dated: December 16, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-32961 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P