 1 13 05 1 Survey of State Support for Performance Based Environmental Programs and Recommendations for Improved Effectiveness Final Report Executive Summary At the request of Administrator Leavitt, the Environmental Council of the States ( ECOS) has prepared this report to describe the level of support among states for Performance Track and state performancebased environmental leadership programs and to recommend actions states believe EPA should take to improve the effectiveness and enhance the value of these programs. These recommendations are based on interviews with commissioners and senior management from 40 state environmental protection agencies. ECOS also met with representatives of the Performance Track Participants Association to seek their input.

The fundamental goal of Performance Track and other state innovations programs is to achieve better environmental results. As such, these programs tend to focus on environmental outcomes ( reduced emissions or higher compliance rates) rather than operationally based output measures ( number of inspections or permits). These programs often provide regulatory flexibility, creating opportunities for high performers to go beyond the compliance measures that are typically established by regulations. They also provide opportunities for state and federal government, as well as the regulated community, to target financial and human resources more strategically to produce better overall environmental results.

The ECOS states applaud Administrator Leavitt, Steve Johnson, and the key leaders at the Environmental Protection Agency for their leadership and vision to advance these goals through Performance Track and other state programs. These programs represent a fundamental change from the past approach to environmental protection, focusing on incentives and risk based decision making. They will require commitment and careful direction to succeed. With the priority and support currently coming from the administrator and his staff, these programs have the potential to move the country significantly forward in meeting and exceeding its environmental goals.

We found substantial interest among states in performance based environmental leadership programs:

  More than 20 states have active state level performance based programs, and an additional five states are currently developing programs;   Eighteen states rank performance based leadership programs among their 10 top priorities ( eleven of these rank them among their top five priorities);   Nearly half of the states interviewed for this effort ( 19 states) report actively promoting Performance Track; and   Nine states have signed Memoranda of Agreement ( MOAs) with EPA to enhance coordination and alignment of their state level efforts with EPA's Performance Track program.

ECOS believes that performance based programs, such as EPA's Performance Track and similar state programs, have the potential to play an increasingly important role in our nation's environmental management system. Performance based programs can:

  Encourage and reward strong and sustained environmental performance improvement among the regulated community that goes beyond compliance and addresses unregulated environmental issues;   Foster greater collaboration between environmental regulatory agencies and high performing companies and government facilities to achieve state and regional environmental goals and address environmental problems; 1 13 05 2   Support the development of cost effective approaches for achieving environmental goals that focus on performance results; and   Free some agency compliance assurance resources to address higher environmental priorities.

Because of our strong support for performance based programs, ECOS welcomes the opportunity to offer recommendations to EPA for actions that can strengthen both Performance Track and state programs and make them core elements of the environmental protection system in the U. S. Our recommendations fall into four main areas. These areas, along with recommended priority actions for attention in 2005, include:

1. Support State Programs and State Efforts to Work with Performance Track   EPA and states, through Performance Partnership Agreements ( PPAs) or other state planning agreements, should provide credit to states for environmental and compliance outcomes achieved through performance based programs. Such credit should be negotiated between the state and their EPA Regional counterparts and include tradeoffs with traditional output measures. To facilitate this process we recommend that EPA and ECOS jointly develop guidance documents for Headquarters and Regional program staff that encourage and accept the use of alternative outcome measures of performance based programs.

  Direct management to create specific line items in each office budget to include support for performance based programs as a component of the FY 06 budget development process   both financial and in kind ( e. g., funding positions for experts within EPA regional offices to assist states). States can use this support for program management, outreach, recruitment and incentive implementation related to Performance Track and state performance based environmental leadership programs.

2. Assure Program Support from All EPA Program Offices   Establish an EPA ECOS working group ( perhaps through the ECOS Planning Committee) to facilitate building Performance Track into next year's strategic plan for each EPA regional program office. The plan development process should focus   on building support from program office staff and empowering them with appropriate performance measures. This will help move Performance Track goals and responsibilities into core programs and ensure that staff from all program offices at EPA Headquarters and Regions are familiar with, responsible for, and actively support federal and state performance based programs.

3. Provide Better Incentives to Participants Faster   Convene an EPA ECOS working group to establish a revitalized system for identifying, developing, and implementing incentives for Performance Track and state programs. This effort should also include the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable ( NPPR), Multi State Working Group ( MSWG) and participants in Performance Track and state performancebased programs   all partners in advancing the effectiveness of these programs. By September 2005, the working group should produce a detailed blueprint of a streamlined process for incentives development with lower transaction costs, which involves active participation of representatives from across EPA's program offices and ECOS.

  Establish a joint EPA ECOS working group to conduct an evaluation of potential regulatory and statutory options for supporting performance based programs and incentives by September 2005. 1 13 05 3 4. Conduct More Strategic Marketing and Education of the Programs   Establish a working group, comprised of EPA, ECOS, NPPR, MSWG and participants in performance based programs, to develop a long term strategic plan by December 2005 for " branding" the Performance Track and state programs. The plan should identify strategic outreach and participant recruiting actions to pursue, including joint marketing of Performance Track and state programs at high visibility events, targeting " sectors of opportunity" at the state level, and designing outreach and marketing materials that can be customized by states to meet their needs.

The attached report contains additional specific actions that ECOS recommends for making performancebased environmental programs more effective. ECOS is firmly committed to working with EPA to implement these recommendations; members of our Cross Media, Compliance and Planning Committees stand ready to participate in these activities and help advance the success of these important programs. As proposed in this report, a joint EPA ECOS working group, with additional participation from NPPR, MSWG and members of performance based programs, could serve as an effective mechanism for making rapid progress on many of the specific recommendations in 2005. 1 13 05 4 I. Introduction At the request of U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Administrator Leavitt, the Environmental Council of the States ( ECOS) has prepared this report to recommend actions states believe EPA should take to improve the effectiveness of performance based environmental leadership programs. This request emerged from a breakfast discussion on performance based programs between Administrator Leavitt and ECOS representatives on October 4, 2004 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 1 These recommendations are based on interviews with commissioners and senior management from 40 state environmental protection agencies.

What are performance based environmental leadership programs?

Performance based environmental leadership programs, such as EPA's National Environmental Performance Track ( http:// www. epa. gov/ performancetrack/), are voluntary partnership programs that recognize and reward private and public facilities that demonstrate strong environmental performance beyond current requirements. The fundamental goal of Performance Track and other state innovations programs is to achieve better environmental results. As such, these programs tend to focus on environmental outcomes ( reduced emissions or higher compliance rates) rather than operationally based output measures ( number of inspections or permits). These programs often provide regulatory flexibility, creating opportunities for high performers to go beyond the compliance measures that are typically established by regulations. They also provide opportunities for state and federal government, as well as the regulated community, to target financial and human resources more strategically to produce better overall environmental results.

Interest in performance based environmental leadership programs has risen over the past decade: more than 20 states have active state level performance based programs, and an additional five states are currently developing programs. Based on our interviews with state commissioners and senior managers, 18 states rank performance based leadership programs among their 10 top priorities ( eleven of these rank them among their top five priorities), and nearly half of the states interviewed for this effort ( 19 states) report actively promoting Performance Track. In addition, nine states have signed Memoranda of Agreement ( MOAs) with EPA to enhance coordination and alignment of their efforts with EPA's Performance Track program. These MOAs focus on joint outreach, application process alignment, reciprocity, and coordinated incentive development.

Why is this report needed?

Despite the interest and initial success of performance based environmental leadership programs, EPA and states face substantial challenges in ensuring that these programs continue to grow and ultimately meet their full potential by becoming core elements of our nation's environmental management system. There is a need to reduce transaction costs2, both for agencies in developing and implementing these programs, and for facilities that choose to participate in them. EPA and states also need to provide better incentives faster to attract and retain program participants. In addition, greater flexibility is needed to allow states to utilize performance based programs to achieve state specific environmental goals and address environmental problems.

1 Representatives from the following states participated in the October 4, 2004 discussion with EPA Administrator Leavitt: California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. 2 In this report the term transaction cost is used to refer to the protracted time it takes to achieve a proposed result and the organizational resistance to change at multiple levels which requires continued and persistent advocacy for an uncertain outcome. 1 13 05 5 This report is intended to identify specific actions to effectively address these and other challenges in promoting and improving beyond compliance performance through performance based environmental leadership programs. In order to be successful, the states must join EPA in taking these important steps. Our hope is that this report serves as a blueprint for future collaboration between EPA and states that builds on the strong level of interest in performance based programs at EPA and among states. Given the high level of interest in these programs that we found through interviewing state commissioners and senior managers, we are confident that the states will be effective partners for EPA in this important work.

The ECOS states applaud Administrator Leavitt, Steve Johnson, and the key leaders at the Environmental Protection Agency for their leadership and vision to advance Performance Track and state performancebased programs. These programs will require commitment and careful direction to succeed. With the priority and support currently coming from the administrator and his staff, these programs have the potential to move the country significantly forward in meeting and exceeding its environmental goals. We would like to affirm ECOS' strong support for EPA's Performance Track program and for state level performance based environmental leadership programs, as well as our interest in working with EPA to follow up on the recommended actions presented in this report.

The EPA ECOS working relationship has continually strengthened in recent years. The National Center for Environmental Innovation ( NCEI) has worked closely with the Cross Media Committee to develop a joint workplan and the chairs of the committee have been invited to sit as participating members of the Innovation Action Council ( IAC). In addition, EPA has invited the ECOS Planning and Alignment Committee to work with it in developing agency strategic plans with state input and establishing joint performance measures. This is resulting in better communication, better goals, and a common direction for environmental protection. These committees are committed to continuing this relationship and welcome the opportunity to participate in building strong and effective innovations programs, such as Performance Track and state performance based programs, which focus on achieving greater environmental results.

What is our vision for performance based programs?

ECOS believes that effective performance based programs can become an essential component of the environmental protection system in the U. S. Our vision for the future of these programs consists of the following four elements that we view as fundamental to their success:

  These programs are no longer " innovative," but are counted among the core agency programs with measurable outcomes;   Transaction costs of developing, implementing and participating in performance based programs are low;   States and EPA jointly implement sufficient incentives to inspire facilities to participate and to achieve meaningful beyond compliance performance; and   States are allowed and encouraged to utilize performance based programs to work with regulated entities to develop creative and effective solutions that address state environmental priorities.

What was the process for preparing this report?

The ECOS Cross Media Committee co chairs convened a subgroup of interested state agency representatives to prepare this report in response to a request from Administrator Leavitt for a list of recommended actions to improve the effectiveness of performance based environmental leadership programs. We were able to hold informal interviews with environmental commissioners and senior managers from 40 states. Based on the information from these interviews, which is summarized in Attachment A, we developed the recommendations outlined in this report. In addition, we met with representatives of the Performance Track Participants Association ( PTPA) to obtain additional insights 1 13 05 6 from the perspective of program participants. These recommendations have been shared with state commissioners of all 50 states and received broad based support. The Executive Officers of ECOS support this report and the chairs of the Cross Media, Planning and Compliance Committees stand ready to work closely with EPA to implement these recommendations. 1 13 05 7 II. Recommendations to EPA ECOS believes that performance based programs, such as EPA's Performance Track Program and similar state programs, have the potential to play an increasingly important role in our nation's environmental protection system. Performance based programs can:

  Encourage and reward strong and sustained environmental performance improvement among the regulated community that goes beyond compliance and addresses unregulated environmental issues;   Foster greater collaboration between environmental regulatory agencies and high performing companies and government facilities to achieve state and regional environmental goals and address environmental priorities;   Support the development of cost effective approaches to achieving environmental goals that focus on performance results; and   Free some agency compliance assurance resources to address higher environmental priorities.

To accomplish these goals, ECOS recommends that EPA pursue specific actions in four main areas, as outlined below. The ECOS Cross Media, Compliance and Planning Committees stand ready to work with EPA to implement these recommendations and to help realize the full potential of performancebased environmental programs.

1. Support State Programs and State Efforts to Work with Performance Track High transaction costs between EPA and states combined with limited support from EPA program offices hinder state efforts to develop and implement performance based environmental leadership programs, including efforts to work with the Performance Track program. Efforts are needed to align the EPA state relationship to recognize and support performance based programs and to reduce transaction costs associated with program implementation. ECOS recommends that EPA pursue the following specific actions:

a. Allow states to receive credit for outcomes from performance based and innovative work and clarify acceptable approaches with documented guidance to EPA staff. The current focus on " beancounting provides strong disincentives for states and EPA to engage in performance based and other innovative work that can produce better environmental results. Common themes from the interviews with ECOS and PTPA representatives indicate that it is essential for EPA to more firmly demonstrate that it values these efforts. For example, EPA could allow pollution prevention ( P2), environmental management system ( EMS), compliance assistance and other leadership program audits to count towards inspection quotas, or begin to evaluate performance based programs based on outcomes and not outputs. We recommend that EPA develop guidance documents for Headquarters and Regional program staff in 2005, with consultation from ECOS, that encourage and accept these and other state measures of innovative work in lieu of traditional " bean counting" measures.

b. Work with volunteer states to develop agreements regarding goals, priorities and measurement of performance based programs through revised Performance Partnership Agreements ( PPAs) or other state planning agreements by September 2005. States and EPA should use existing tools or develop new ones for coordinating EPA and state environmental protection activities. They should serve to identify key common priorities and to set goals for specific activities. It is critical to make Performance Track and state performance based programs explicit priorities in these agreements, and to allow states to receive credit for performance based programs and related innovations activities. This can be accomplished through including these activities in special collaboration categories or by incorporating them as tools within other core programs. As state programs are developed and 1 13 05 8 enhanced, EPA needs to support them by allowing a reduction in other work or a disinvestment in some of the traditional tools and approaches.

We recommend that EPA solicit volunteer states ( across at least two EPA regions) to develop revised state planning agreements with regional offices by September 2005. The goal of this effort would be to develop standard language for use by other regions in support of Performance Track and other innovative programs. Specifically, this language should allow states to receive credit for performance based and innovative work. This effort should be accompanied by aggressive outreach to staff responsible for these agreements in state agencies and EPA regional offices.

c. Establish a joint EPA ECOS working group to reassess effectiveness of existing EPA state coordination mechanisms by September 2005. ECOS commends EPA for developing a variety of mechanisms to encourage coordination with states in developing and implementing performancebased programs   for example, EPA has signed formal MOAs with nine states, sponsors monthly conference calls with state agency staff working on performance based programs, convenes an annual state and regional conference to promote performance based programs, and has initiated the State Innovation Grants Program. ECOS recommends that EPA and states evaluate whether these and other mechanisms are providing sufficient opportunities for EPA state communication and coordination, and consider whether there are additional ways to increase alignment of our efforts and reduce transaction costs. This reassessment could be conducted in conjunction with other joint EPAECOS working group efforts proposed in this report.

d. Identify opportunities for improving alignment and coordination of Performance Track with state and sector priorities in 2005. EPA has recognized the varying priorities across regions by giving two forone credit to companies for Performance Track challenge commitments that address key regional environmental issues. We recommend that EPA extend this approach to commitments that address either state environmental priorities or key challenges for specific sectors. Specific opportunities for improving alignment and coordination of performance based programs with state and sector priorities should be developed in conjunction with other joint EPA ECOS working group efforts proposed in this report. Allowing greater flexibility for states to develop a performance based approach to address these priorities or challenges could provide an effective alternative to pursuing a traditional regulatory approach of command and control and permitting. This approach could be highly effective at engaging new sectors, such as the agriculture sector, in performance based programs.

In addition, states need greater flexibility to tailor performance based efforts to match the profile of industries that they regulate. We recommend that the joint EPA ECOS working group examine opportunities for supporting efforts to tailor performance based programs to target specific sectorbased opportunities and state environmental priorities. For example, states should have a clear path to develop performance based approaches to address existing or emerging sector specific problems. In such a setting, a state and EPA could work together with specific sectors to identify performance commitments and develop incentive packages. This process could lead to performance based agreements that are highly relevant, addressing state environmental priorities in a manner that builds business value for participating companies within a sector. For example, Wisconsin's Green Tier Program contains provisions for sector focused " charters," similar to those used in the Netherlands and Bavaria, Germany. This sector focused environmental covenant approach to encouraging and responding to high performance provides an intriguing model for targeting performance based programs on regional or state environmental priority areas.

Other examples of this approach include an innovative, performance based partnership with the auto salvage industry and the dental industry to promote mercury reduction and achieve other goals; an agreement with confined animal feeding operations ( CAFOs) or the agricultural community to achieve state goals; and an innovative stormwater excellence program to achieve greater compliance rates within the construction industry. In each of these examples, regulatory agencies work with 1 13 05 9 specific sectors or groups of companies to secure commitments for targeted performance improvements that address a state or regional environmental priority, and to develop incentives that encourage these commitments. The joint EPA ECOS working group should examine ways to support, enhance, and streamline this process for targeting performance based programs to address regional and state priorities and sector based environmental improvement opportunities.

e. Establish a joint EPA state working group to develop sub categories of the Performance Track Program that are tailored to be less burdensome for certain segments of the business community. Performance Track, in its current design, has transaction costs associated with entry, reporting, and renewal that are too high to be attractive to certain segments of the business community, such as many small businesses, local governments, and the agriculture sector. States believe that opportunities exist to tailor performance based programs to be relevant and attractive to companies within these business segments. ECOS recommends that EPA establish a working group through which EPA and interested states can collaborate to develop a component of the Performance Track program that is more relevant to small businesses, local governments, the agriculture sector, and other sectors where the current program model is less viable.

f. Direct management to include support   both financial and in kind   for performance based programs as a component of the FY 06 budget development process to enhance program management, outreach, recruitment, and incentives implementation. Increases in EPA financial and in kind support for implementation of performance based environmental leadership programs to EPA regions and states would send a strong signal that EPA is committed to transforming Performance Track into a core agency program. Budget pressures in many states and EPA regions are preventing states from securing sustained resources to invest in the development of performance based programs. Financial resources could be used to offset state costs for initial program implementation, to enable more state staff to participate in performance based program implementation activities, or to support new incentives such as off setting revenue shortfalls from the provision of reduced permitting fees to Performance Track participants. EPA should provide staff expertise at the regional level to assist states in developing and implementing performance based leadership programs.

EPA should also provide the flexibility for states to use current funding to support innovation, education and outreach activities. If EPA allows for alternative measures and outcomes, as discussed above, states can use existing resources to develop, implement and promote incentives and performance based programs.

2. Assure Support from All EPA Program Offices EPA's and states' efforts in developing and implementing performance based programs have been hindered by a lack of coordinated support from EPA's core program offices. Core program staff often rely on the historical regulatory command and control approach to environmental regulations upon which their programs were built. There is also no structure in place at EPA that rewards program staff for innovative approaches to environmental problems. Consequently, while there is often support for innovation at some management levels, staff support is frequently lacking. Efforts are needed to overcome several structural barriers that inhibit innovation and performance based program implementation, such as:

  Lack of familiarity with performance based programs and innovations, and poor understanding of how these can relate to core program functions, goals, and performance measures;   Risk aversion due to lack of perceived reward for making changes;   Cultural resistance to change ( reliance on existing regulatory approaches); and   Large numbers of approvals required to make changes or implement innovative approaches ( transaction costs). 1 13 05 10 EPA should take action to build understanding and commitment from Headquarters and Regional staff in these offices so they can support the important role of performance based programs in achieving better environmental results. We recommend that EPA take the following specific actions to increase internal support for performance based programs:

a. Work with national and regional EPA program managers and ECOS to integrate Performance Track activities into next year's strategic plans and performance measures for each program office. ECOS believes this is necessary to ensure that other core program staffs at EPA HQ and Regional Offices are familiar with, responsible for, and actively support federal and state performance based programs. States frequently encounter EPA staff in core program offices at HQ and regions who are unfamiliar with or do not support Performance Track. This represents a major impediment to our ability to assist with the implementation of Performance Track incentives and other aspects of the program. Increased awareness of this program and the strong support that it has from senior EPA management is essential to its continued growth. We recommend that EPA work to garner the support of its national program managers and to clearly communicate this support to staff at all levels. We also recommend that EPA leadership work actively with these national program managers to address the structural barriers mentioned above. One way to encourage this greater awareness would be to " push Performance Track down through the ranks" by involving program staff at EPA Headquarters and Regional offices more actively in Performance Track program implementation, including incentives delivery and related pilot projects. Performance Track and state performance based programs have the potential to help each program office meet its goals more effectively and each office should be involved in developing a program that works for them.

We also see the critical need to implement effectively the IAC " issue resolution process" to quickly identify and address situations where development and implementation of performance based programs becomes mired in administrative process; this is particularly relevant to developing and implementing incentives. In the current state, incentive development can be delayed indefinitely by a single EPA office representative. One approach could be to have a mechanism for prompt elevation of incentive ideas to senior agency management to expedite review and approval. Another approach could be to have designated " innovations advocates" within OECA, OGC and program offices, or within NCEI, who have authority to challenge decisions unfavorable to innovations and to help expedite incentive development.

b. Improve coordination and alignment of Performance Track with other EPA voluntary programs. We believe that there are opportunities to leverage the full suite of EPA voluntary programs to better identify and add value to performance base program implementation. In many cases, voluntary programs such as EPA's Green Suppliers Network, Sector Strategies Program, Resource Conservation Challenge, and Pollution Prevention Assistance programs work directly with companies and federal facilities that are participating in or are good candidates for Performance Track. ECOS recommends that EPA establish a framework for improving coordination between these and other EPA voluntary programs and for identifying and pursuing potential synergies.

3. Provide Better Incentives to Participants Faster It is critical to deliver better incentives faster to attract and retain program participants. Incentives must deliver significant business value to potential program participants   in the form of enhanced external reputation, operational cost reductions, or improved capital productivity. It is important to note that the longer term success and attractiveness of performance based programs is tied to the ability to deliver incentives that can optimize companies' capital investment strategies. Most current incentives focus on operational efficiency and flexibility, such as reducing inspections or reporting obligations. Providing incentives that alter the timing or focus of capital investment could make performance based programs 1 13 05 11 significantly more attractive. For example, sector focused incentives could enable qualifying participants to delay investment in certain pollution control equipment in exchange for making other investments that, in aggregate, bring greater environmental improvement faster. Similarly, incentives could increase participants' flexibility in controlling pollution through more cost effective means. Efforts in these areas will broaden the attractiveness of participation beyond a small segment of industry leaders.

ECOS recommends that EPA pursue the following specific actions to support the provision of better incentives faster:

a. Develop and implement a revitalized system in 2005 for identifying, developing, and implementing incentives for Performance Track and state programs. While important progress has been made in expanding federal and state program incentives, ECOS believes the incentives development system needs substantial improvement. It is critical to develop incentives that have greater value to participants, and to align federal and state incentives to achieve maximum impacts.

Incentive development should be more demand driven, drawing more actively on perspectives and ideas from current and potential program participants. For example, EPA and states could more actively engage the members of their performance based programs, trade associations, and other participating organizations. A demand driven approach could also help prioritize incentive ideas based on their attractiveness to program participants, and build consensus around which incentives to pursue.

The incentive development system should also include a process to more systematically identify and evaluate incentives that would be attractive to specific economic or industrial sectors. For example, several states cited the need to develop incentives that are relevant and attractive to specific sectors such as agriculture, CAFOs, and pulp and paper. EPA could support a collaborative process to work with specific sector and state representatives to develop sector focused incentive packages. We see two major advantages to developing sector focused incentive packages: ( 1) they enhance recruitment efforts within a sector, and ( 2) they help EPA and the states use performance based programs to target specific environmental impacts that may be associated with sector operations. Opportunities also exist for more active coordination and cooperation between Performance Track and other EPA programs that have sector focused orientations, such as the Sector Strategies Program, the Green Suppliers Network, and the Resource Conservation Challenge.

Finally, efforts are needed to better align and coordinate incentive identification, development, and implementation between EPA and states. In many cases, states are the direct service providers, interacting with companies and federal facilities to conduct inspections, issue permits, and provide technical assistance. Improved alignment and coordination among EPA and interested states can help ensure that incentives are implemented in the desired way, and that respective federal and state roles complement each other in delivering incentives. Improved alignment and coordination can also help to identify and remove potential state regulatory or other barriers that could inhibit the effectiveness of a particular incentive. MOAs provide a useful framework for the necessary effort to align and coordinate EPA and state incentives activities.

b. Evaluate several specific ideas for incentives in 2005 that may be of significant value to current and potential program participants. ECOS has identified several specific incentive ideas that could provide significant value to some current and potential future performance based program participants. In addition, during our discussions with PTPA representatives they identified three priority areas for incentives implementation: priority permitting/ streamlined permitting, reduced inspection frequency, and support for innovation alternatives. In light of input from ECOS and PTPA representatives, we recommend that EPA evaluate the following ideas in 2005 as part of the revitalized incentive development process: 1 13 05 12   Expand permitting incentives that reduce time, uncertainty, and administrative burden, such as expedited permitting, expanded use of permitting techniques that afford operational flexibility, streamlined monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions;   Expand incentives that reduce inspections of participating facilities through the use of riskbased targeting of inspections;   Enable the development of source and sector specific innovation alternatives to conventional environmental requirements;   Provide direct financial incentives such as access to government environmental research grant money and reduced or waived permitting fees;   Establish financial and competitiveness incentives through preferences for program participants in federal and state contracting and procurement; and   Promote the Performance Track program and members in the financial services sector, exploring options to better position participants with regard to company valuation and investment, lending, and insurance.

ECOS is also aware that several lists of potential incentives have been developed in recent years by various parties. These lists should be considered in the revitalized incentive development process recommended above. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the incentive development process will need to accommodate efforts to identify and develop incentives that are specifically targeted at particular sectors or groups, including small businesses, local governments, and the agriculture sector.

c. Work with ECOS in 2005 to evaluate potential regulatory and statutory options for improving and streamlining the incentive implementation process. The ability to drive significant environmental improvement through performance based programs could be significantly enhanced through a federal statutory change or cross media regulation that: ( 1) recognizes performance based programs as an important tool in the nation's environmental management system, and ( 2) addresses directly the challenge of establishing procedural and technology based standards " equivalency" between conventional regulatory approaches and alternative improvement approaches developed through performance based programs. Without doing away with the intent or general state of progress that the national air, water, and waste statutes have produced, such a statute or regulation could delegate to states the authority to approximate " equivalency," on at least an experimental basis.

We recommend that EPA work with interested states in 2005 to evaluate the potential scope for and desirability of pursuing regulatory or statutory options for supporting performance based programs. A regulatory option would likely require careful analysis of existing enabling acts to develop a cross media performance based regulatory program for Performance Track and state leadership program participants. Several states, including Texas and Virginia, have enacted or are pursuing legislative options to explicitly recognize the importance of providing performance based incentives. These new state laws generally allow for variances to existing state regulations to support innovation and performance based incentive provision. Federal regulation or legislation could be highly useful to complement and support these state efforts. These state legislative approaches could also provide models for federal legislation.

4. Conduct More Aggressive Marketing and Education of the Programs More aggressive marketing, outreach and education are needed to increase awareness of Performance Track and state performance based programs and to recruit new participants. The medium and long term viability of performance based environmental programs hinges on their ability to attract and retain new participants. Failure to increase program participation will erode states' willingness to invest in and support these programs. We believe that EPA can play an important leadership role in the promotion and outreach around Performance Track and state performance based programs. ECOS recommends that 1 13 05 13 EPA pursue the following specific actions to recruit more program participants faster and to increase the national visibility of Performance Track:

a. Establish a joint EPA ECOS working group to develop a long term strategy for " branding" the Performance Track program and state programs. This " branding" strategy development should be conducted in conjunction with other joint EPA ECOS working group efforts for 2005 proposed in this report. Developing an identifiable " brand" for the Performance Track program is critical to supporting the recognition benefit to members, as well as to attracting new participants. The development of a long term " branding" strategy would focus limited outreach and marketing resources to maximize awareness of the program among key constituencies. For example, " Energy Star" stickers on appliances are well recognized. Targeted branding strategies can reach potential corporate and federal facility program participants, trade associations, professional organizations, financial markets, the public, and other groups that can contribute to the program's success.

b. Meet with interested states in 2005 to develop an action plan for conducting aggressive outreach and participant recruitment. There is much that EPA and states can do to improve the effectiveness and impact of Performance Track outreach and recruitment efforts. EPA should work more aggressively with interested states to coordinate outreach and to promote Performance Track and affiliated state programs. ECOS recommends several specific actions:

  Senior EPA leadership should reach out to state Governors to promote Performance Track and state programs, and to enlist Governors' support in marketing these programs at high visibility events;   States should identify " sectors of opportunity" within their state, where it would be desirable to increase participation in Performance Track so that joint state EPA outreach can target those priority sectors;   EPA and interested states should meet in 2005 to develop coordinated action plans for outreach and program recruitment; and   EPA and state agency leadership should step up efforts to jointly participate in and conduct conferences and events to raise the profile of Performance Track and state performance based programs.

EPA can play an important role in developing marketing and outreach materials that can promote both Performance Track and state performance based leadership programs. We recommend that EPA consider the following ideas for marketing and outreach materials:

  Develop a brochure on Performance Track and affiliated state performance based programs that states can customize and include in their outreach efforts;   Further document and more widely disseminate information on participants' cost savings and other program results; and   Document the business case for company involvement in performance based leadership programs, highlighting financial benefits associated with risk reduction and competitive advantage. 1 13 05 14 Attachment A Summary of Interviews: State Environmental Commissioners and Senior Managers 1 13 05 15 Exhibit A 1 STATE SPECIFIC INFORMATION State Response MOA Promote Performance Track Performance based Environmental Leadership Program1 Priority level 2 Alabama Yes No Yes No Middle Alaska Yes No No No Not a priority Arizona Yes No Unclear Active High Arkansas No No  No  California No No  No  Colorado Yes Yes Yes Active Middle Connecticut Yes No No No Not a priority Delaware Yes No Yes Active Low Florida Yes No No No Rank not specified Georgia Yes Yes Yes Active High Hawaii Yes No No No Not a priority Idaho Yes No Yes Active Middle Illinois Yes No No Active3 Low Indiana No No  Active  Iowa No No  No  Kansas No No  No  Kentucky Yes No No Under development High Louisiana Yes No No Active Mixed Maine Yes Yes Yes Active Middle Maryland Yes No Unclear No Mixed Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Currently inactive Middle Michigan Yes No No Active High Minnesota Yes No Yes No Mixed Mississippi Yes No Yes Under development Middle Missouri Yes No Yes Active Low Montana Yes No No No Low Nebraska Yes No No No Low Nevada Yes No No Under development High New Hampshire Yes No Yes No Low New Jersey No No  No  New Mexico Yes No No Active High New York No No  Under development  North Carolina Yes No4 No Active High North Dakota No No  No  Ohio No No  No  Oklahoma Yes No Unclear Active Mixed Oregon Yes No No Recently deactivated Mixed Pennsylvania Yes No Yes No Rank not specified Rhode Island Yes No No No Low South Carolina Yes No Yes Active Mixed South Dakota Yes No No No Low 1 13 05 16 Exhibit A 1 STATE SPECIFIC INFORMATION State Response MOA Promote Performance Track Performance based Environmental Leadership Program1 Priority level 2 Tennessee Yes Yes Yes Active High Texas Yes Yes Yes Active Mixed Utah Yes Yes Yes Active High Vermont Yes No No Active Not a priority Virginia Yes Yes Yes Active High Washington Yes Yes Yes No Rank not specified West Virginia Yes No Yes Under development Middle Wisconsin Yes No No Active High Wyoming No No  No  TOTAL 40 9 19 1 Information on state environmental leadership programs is provided to the best of our knowledge. Sources include interviews, state websites, and previous research conducted by Industrial Economics and Ross & Associates. 2 Interview respondents interpreted the question regarding the priority level of leadership programs in several different ways. Some respondents refer to the priority level of Performance Track only, while others speak to both state and federal leadership programs. States where the priority level varied between senior management and program level staff are marked as " Mixed." For instance, in Minnesota, leadership programs are a high priority to the administration and a low priority within core program offices. States that ranked leadership programs among their top ten and top five priorities are marked as " Middle" and " High," respectively. 3 Active, but no longer accepting applications. 4 North Carolina has recently introduced a new " Rising Steward" level into its Environmental Stewardship Initiative, which is similar to Performance Track. North Carolina indicated that it plans to work on developing an MOA over the next six months. 1 13 05 17 Exhibit A 2 SUMMARY OF STATE PERFORMANCE BASED PROGRAM STATUS AND PRIORITY State Performance based Environmental Leadership Program Active 21 Under development 5 Currently inactive 1 Recently de activated 1 No 22 Priority Level of Leadership Programs High 11 Middle 7 Low 8 Mixed 7 Not a priority 4 Rank not specified 3 SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESULTS:

I. Support State Programs and State Efforts to Work with Performance Track: ( Number of states that commented on improving EPA state coordination = 30)

( 23) Incorporate performance based programs in PPA and allow credit for bean counting [ includes: ( 6) Reduce focus on bean counting] ( 21) Funding and resources ( 5) Connect PT to state and core program priorities ( 6) Align Performance Track and state programs II. Assure Program Support from All EPA Program Offices  Internal EPA Coordination: ( Number of states that commented on internal EPA coordination = 13)

( 6) More involvement, specifically from program staff ( 3) Encourage culture change within EPA, OECA and OGC ( 2) Senior management communicate support ( 2) Improve coordination of all EPA voluntary programs and initiatives 1 13 05 18 III. Provide Better Incentives to Participants: ( Number of states that commented on incentives = 26) ( 8) Regulatory incentives ( 7) Suggestions on considerations when developing incentives ( state regulations, facility specific, small businesses, other environmental issues, involvement of program staff) ( 4) Streamlined/ Less reporting ( 4) Priority/ Expedited permitting ( 3) Flexibility to states in implementing incentives ( 3) Economic incentives green investment ratings ( 2) Expanded permit terms ( years) ( 1) State purchasing program ( 1) Implement low priority for inspection ( 1) High profile activities ( 1) Discount to state parks for employees of member facilities IV: Program Outreach and Marketing: ( Number of states that commented on outreach and marketing = 20)

( 5) Expand program to accommodate small and medium sized businesses or facilities with small environmental footprint ( 5) Expand program to accommodate more sectors ( including tribal groups) and engage facilities one on one ( 5) Demonstrate costs savings and program results, share success stories ( 4) Reach out to state governors, participate in state events, and utilize partnerships ( 4) Improve reputation through more stringent compliance or performance criteria ( 1) Provide assistance through guidance documents ( sector specific EMS guidance) ( 1) Reach out to national business leaders and encourage them to share the benefits of being an environmental steward from a business perspective.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 57548]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20274]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95774; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Options Fee
Schedule To Remove Certain Credits and Increase Trading Permit Fees

September 14, 2022.
    On July 26, 2022, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to remove certain credits
and increase trading permit fees. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 10, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95419 (August 4,
2022), 87 FR 48702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2022, MIAX Pearl withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-PEARL-2022-30).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20274 Filed 9-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24298-24300]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0057]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
15 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective May 19, 2013. Comments must be
received on or before May 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [FMCSA-2011-0057]], using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that

DOT posts all comments received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a
comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 15 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 15 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Luis A. Bejarano (AZ)
Richard T. Berendt (OH)
James P. Lanigan (OH)
Nusret Odzakovic (FL)
James O. Cook (GA)
Timothy J. Curran (CA)
Alfred D. Hewitt (IL)
Luke R. Lafley (WA)
Kevin R. Lambert (NC)
Scott W. Schilling (ND)
Randy E. Sims (WA)
Halman Smith (DE)
Mark A. Kleinow (IA)
Robert D. Smith (OH)
Richard D. Williams (OK)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 15 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (76 FR 18824; 76 FR 29024). Each of these 15 applicants
has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence
showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the
requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting
each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by May 24, 2013.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 15 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will

take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: April 12, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-09694 Filed 4-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38276-38279]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0626; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Removal of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; South-
Central Florida Metroplex Project

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends low altitude United States Area Navigation
(RNAV) routes, T-207, T-210, T-336, T-339, T-341, T-343, T-345, T-347,
T-349, and T-353; and removes T-337, in support of the South-Central
Florida Metroplex Project. These route changes were previously proposed
in Docket No. FAA-2021-0940 but were deferred to a later date due to
additional planning and coordination requirements.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0940, in the Federal

Register (86 FR 61724; November 8, 2021). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal. No comments were received. However, the FAA
determined that additional planning and coordination was required for
the routes contained in this rule, so they were removed from the
previous docket action. The route descriptions in this rule are as
published in the NPRM.
    United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15,
2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV
routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in FAA
Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV T-routes T-207,
T-210, T-336 T-339, T-341, T-343, T-345, T-347, T-349, and T-353; and
removing T-337, in support of the South-Central Florida Metroplex
Project. The route changes are described below.
    T-207: T-207 currently extends between the Ormond Beach, FL, (OMN)
VHF Omnidirectional Radar and Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC)
and the Waycross, GA, (AYS) VORTAC. This action realigns T-207 by
moving the starting point from the Ormond Beach VORTAC to the FOXAM,
FL, waypoint (WP), which is approximately 15 nautical miles (NM) north
of the Ormond Beach VORTAC. The CARRA, FL, Fix and the MONIA, FL, Fix
are removed from the route, and the segments between the CARRA Fix and
the Waycross, GA, (AYS) VORTAC are also removed. Instead, T-207 begins
at the FOXAM, FL, WP, then proceeds to the MMKAY, FL WP, then to a new
end point at the WALEE, FL, WP (located east of the Gators, FL, (GNV)
VORTAC).
    T-210: T-210 currently extends between the MARQO, FL, WP, and the
VARZE, FL, WP. The MARQO, FL, WP, and the BRADO, FL, Fix are removed
from the route. The start point of the route is moved to the HADDE, FL,
Fix, which is approximately 35 NM west of the MARQO, FL, WP. The MISSM,
FL, WP is added between the HADDE, FL, Fix and the OHLEE, FL, WP. After
the OHLEE, FL, WP, the route proceeds to the MMKAY, FL, WP, and then
southward to the VARZE, FL, WP, as currently charted.
    T-336: T-336 currently extends between the TROYR, FL, WP, and the
WIXED, FL, WP. The FAA is amending the route by adding the FUTSY, FL,
WP between the TROYR, FL, and OMMNI, FL, WPs. The VISTA, FL, WP is
added between the OMMNI, FL, WP and the PUNQU, FL WP. The WIXED, FL, WP
(the current end point of the route) is removed from T-336. A new end
point for the route is established at the VALKA, FL, Fix. The VALKA Fix
is approximately 15 NM northwest of the WIXED WP. As amended, T-336
extends between the TROYR, FL, WP, and the VALKA, FL, Fix.
    T-337: T-337 currently extends between the SWENY, FL, WP and the
WEZER, FL, WP. T-337 no longer provides the most efficient route into
or out of southwest FL, therefore, the FAA is removing the entire
route.
    T-339: T-339 currently extends between the KARTR, FL, Fix and the
ODDEL, FL, Fix. This change removes the KARTR Fix from the route. The
start point is moved approximately 25 NM to the southeast of the KARTR
Fix to the existing CARNU, FL, Fix. From the CARNU Fix, T-339 proceeds
to the DEEDS, FL, Fix, and then proceeds to the end point at the ODDEL,
FL, Fix as currently charted.
    T-341: T-341 currently extends between the MEAGN, FL, WP, and the
MARQO, FL WP. The FAA is inserting additional WPs along the route as
follows. The YELLZ, FL, WP is inserted between the CUSEK, FL, WP and
the WEZER, FL, WP. The DULFN, FL; OMMNI, FL; and WHOOU, FL, WPs are
added between the VARSE, FL, and the MARQO, FL, WPs.
    T-343: T-343 currently extends between the WORPP, FL, Fix, and the
INDIA, FL, Fix. The WORPP Fix is removed from the route and the COOFS,
FL, Fix becomes the new start point for the route. The COOFS Fix is
approximately 2 NM southwest of the WORPP Fix.
    T-345: T-345 currently extends between the MARKT, FL WP, and the
DEARY, FL, Fix. The only change to the route is removing the DEARY, FL,
Fix as the end point and substituting the VALKA, FL, Fix as the new end
point. This realigns the route between the LLNCH, FL, Fix and the
VALKA, FL, Fix to the east of its current track.
    T-347: T-347 currently extends between the CLEFF, FL, WP, and the
SEBAG, FL, Fix. This action moves the start point from the CLEFF, FL,
WP southward to the SHANC, FL, Fix. This change extends T-347 southward
by approximately 50 NM increasing the availability of RNAV routing. In
addition, the ODDEL, FL, Fix is added between the BAIRN, FL, Fix and
the SABOT, FL, Fix. As amended, T-347 extends between the SHANC, FL,
Fix and the SEBAG, FL, Fix.
    T-349: T-349 currently extends between the VARSE, FL, WP, and the
TROYR, FL, WP. The only change to this route is the addition of the
MILOW, FL, WP, and the MURDE, FL, WP between the VARSE, FL, WP and the
TROYR, FL WP. The alignment of T-349 is not affected by this change.
    T-353: T-353 currently extends between the FEBRO, FL, WP and the
ASTOR, FL, Fix. This action removes the ASTOR, FL, Fix from the route
and establishes a new end point for the route at the STARY, GA, Fix
(located 18 NM northeast of the Brunswick, GA, (SSI) VORTAC. The COBOK,
FL, Fix and the SUBER, FL, Fix are added between the FOXAM, FL, WP, and
the STARY, GA, Fix. This results in the track of T-353 north of the
FOXAM WP being shifted to the east of its current alignment.
Additionally, moving the end point of the route from the ASTOR Fix to
the STARY Fix provides approximately 80 NM of additional RNAV routing
in the NAS.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending 10 low altitude
United States Area Navigation (RNAV) T routes, and removing one T
route, as described above, in support of efforts transitioning the NAS
from ground-based to satellite-based navigation, qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that
designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and
reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D,
and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from
further environmental impact review ``Actions regarding establishment
of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet
routes and VOR Federal airways) . . .''. As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-207 FOXAM, FL to WALEE, FL [Amended]
FOXAM, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]33'37.73'' N, long. 081[deg]09'37.84'' W)
MMKAY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]41'55.42'' N, long. 081[deg]26'49.15'' W)
WALEE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]41'36.05'' N, long. 082[deg]14'07.07'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-210 HADDE, FL to VARZE, FL [Amended]
HADDE, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 30[deg]31'54.46'' N, long. 083[deg]13'50.21'' W)
MISSM, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 30[deg]27'28.15'' N, long. 082[deg]36'32.24'' W)
OHLEE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 30[deg]16'06.04'' N, long. 082[deg]06'32.53'' W)
MMKAY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]41'55.42'' N, long. 081[deg]26'49.15'' W)
MRUTT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]12'12.40'' N, long. 081[deg]23'55.50'' W)
GUANO, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 29[deg]05'58.73'' N, long. 081[deg]23'18.93'' W)
KIZER, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]55'26.00'' N, long. 081[deg]22'17.83'' W)
EMSEE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]50'43.72'' N, long. 081[deg]32'47.03'' W)
DAIYL, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]49'10.74'' N, long. 081[deg]41'29.68'' W)
AKOJO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]45'44.01'' N, long. 081[deg]43'31.54'' W)
PUNQU, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]34'33.65'' N, long. 081[deg]49'22.43'' W)
VARZE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]16'25.85'' N, long. 082[deg]01'44.51'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-336 TROYR, FL to VALKA, FL [Amended]
TROYR, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]34'20.92'' N, long. 083[deg]01'52.68'' W)
FUTSY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]06'46.70'' N, long. 082[deg]28'11.29'' W)
OMMNI, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]51'29.29'' N, long. 082[deg]09'41.75'' W)
VIZTA, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]45'18.38'' N, long. 082[deg]02'15.09'' W)
PUNQU, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]34'33.65'' N, long. 081[deg]49'22.43'' W)
YOJIX, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]02'44.04'' N, long. 081[deg]33'45.34'' W)
YONMA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]03'55.68'' N, long. 081[deg]24'31.18'' W)
ODDEL, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]05'45.51'' N, long. 081[deg]10'10.24'' W)
DEARY, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]06'02.53'' N, long. 080[deg]54'51.40'' W)
VALKA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 27[deg]55'06.06'' N, long. 080[deg]34'17.17'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-337 SWENY, FL to WEZER, FL [Removed]

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-339 CARNU, FL to ODDEL, FL [Amended]
CARNU, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 25[deg]08'18.13'' N, long. 081[deg]19'32.12'' W)
DEEDS, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 25[deg]58'40.31'' N, long. 081[deg]13'59.60'' W)
SWAGS, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 26[deg]10'37.07'' N, long. 081[deg]05'59.93'' W)
ZAGPO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]23'47.41'' N, long. 080[deg]57'25.83'' W)
DIDDY, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 27[deg]18'38.15'' N, long. 080[deg]52'55.92'' W)
ODDEL, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]05'45.51'' N, long. 081[deg]10'10.24'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-341 MEAGN, FL to MARQO, FL [Amended]
MEAGN, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]14'17.20'' N, long. 080[deg]47'23.64'' W)
ZAGPO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]23'47.41'' N, long. 080[deg]57'25.83'' W)
CUSEK, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]51'38.79'' N, long. 081[deg]23'17.37'' W)
YELLZ, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]51'36.18'' N, long. 081[deg]56'34.16'' W)

WEZER, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]02'26.59'' N, long. 082[deg]02'39.60'' W)
VARZE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]16'25.85'' N, long. 082[deg]01'44.51'' W)
DULFN, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]37'02.05'' N, long. 082[deg]06'24.33'' W)
OMMNI, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]51'29.29'' N, long. 082[deg]09'41.75'' W)
WHOOU, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]51'25.91'' N, long. 082[deg]23'30.65'' W)
MARQO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 30[deg]30'53.57'' N, long. 082[deg]32'45.62'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-343 COOFS, FL to INDIA, FL [Amended]
COOFS, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 25[deg]52'18.17'' N, long. 081[deg]00'37.52'' W)
CUSEK, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]51'38.79'' N, long. 081[deg]23'17.37'' W)
FEBRO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]37'02.08'' N, long. 081[deg]47'07.68'' W)
TAHRS, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]52'12.96'' N, long. 081[deg]33'55.12'' W)
YOJIX, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]02'44.04'' N, long. 081[deg]33'45.34'' W)
YONMA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]03'55.68'' N, long. 081[deg]24'31.18'' W)
ODDEL, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]05'45.51'' N, long. 081[deg]10'10.24'' W)
DEARY, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]06'02.53'' N, long. 080[deg]54'51.40'' W)
INDIA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]26'04.19'' N, long. 080[deg]45'55.25'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-345 MARKT, FL to VALKA, FL [Amended]
MARKT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]22'53.63'' N, long. 080[deg]34'41.82'' W)
AIRBT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]46'51.62'' N, long. 080[deg]42'21.85'' W)
DOWDI, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]07'16.35'' N, long. 080[deg]42'02.47'' W)
LLNCH, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 27[deg]26'07.67'' N, long. 080[deg]41'44.46'' W)
VALKA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 27[deg]55'06.06'' N, long. 080[deg]34'17.17'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-347 SHANC, FL to SEBAG, FL [Amended]
SHANC, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 26[deg]18'51.14'' N, long. 080[deg]20'00.16'' W)
BOBOE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]28'48.72'' N, long. 080[deg]23'05.23'' W)
DURRY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]43'46.96'' N, long. 080[deg]24'09.25'' W)
CLEFF, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]00'03.31'' N, long. 080[deg]32'38.27'' W)
BAIRN, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 27[deg]56'52.37'' N, long. 081[deg]06'54.35'' W)
ODDEL, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]05'45.51'' N, long. 081[deg]10'10.24'' W)
SABOT, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]15'05.10'' N, long. 081[deg]13'37.16'' W)
CROPY, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]47'32.71'' N, long. 081[deg]21'35.38'' W)
KIZER, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]55'26.00'' N, long. 081[deg]22'17.83'' W)
GUANO, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 29[deg]05'58.73'' N, long. 081[deg]23'18.93'' W)
MRUTT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]12'12.40'' N, long. 081[deg]23'55.50'' W)
FOXAM, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]33'37.73'' N, long. 081[deg]09'37.84'' W)
SEBAG, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 29[deg]49'04.24'' N, long. 081[deg]12'34.72'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-349 VARZE, FL to TROYR, FL [Amended]
VARZE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]16'25.85'' N, long. 082[deg]01'44.51'' W)
MILOW, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]38'02.43'' N, long. 082[deg]18'14.27'' W)
MURDE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]01'30.64'' N, long. 082[deg]36'18.52'' W)
TROYR, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]34'20.92'' N, long. 083[deg]01'52.68'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-353 FEBRO, FL to STARY, GA [Amended]
FEBRO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]37'02.08'' N, long. 081[deg]47'07.68'' W)
MOANS, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 27[deg]54'49.97'' N, long. 081[deg]44'54.89'' W)
PUNQU, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]34'33.65'' N, long. 081[deg]49'22.43'' W)
AKOJO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]45'44.01'' N, long. 081[deg]43'31.54'' W)
DAIYL, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]49'10.74'' N, long. 081[deg]41'29.68'' W)
EMSEE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]50'43.72'' N, long. 081[deg]32'47.03'' W)
KIZER, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]55'26.00'' N, long. 081[deg]22'17.83'' W)
GUANO, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 29[deg]05'58.73'' N, long. 081[deg]23'18.93'' W)
MRUTT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]12'12.40'' N, long. 081[deg]23'55.50'' W)
FOXAM, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]33'37.73'' N, long. 081[deg]09'37.84'' W)
COBOK, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 29[deg]48'30.53'' N, long. 081[deg]06'45.71'' W)
SUBER, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 30[deg]27'24.49'' N, long. 081[deg]06'45.46'' W)
STARY, GA                     FIX                 (Lat. 31[deg]12'04.70'' N, long. 081[deg]08'40.48'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-13581 Filed 6-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7337]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02820]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0393; FRL-9941-55]

Registration Review Interim Decisions; Notice of Availability;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of October 15,
2015, concerning Registration Review Interim Decisions, Notice of
Availability. This document corrects a typographical error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division, (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the October 15, 2015 notice a list of those
who may be potentially affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0393, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The 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 Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What does this correction do?

    FR Doc. 2015-26299 published in the Federal Register of October 15,
2015 (80 FR 62069) (FRL-9934-06) is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 62071, in the second column, at the end of the document,
the signature is corrected to read Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Michael Goodis,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-02820 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P