[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88314-88317]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2005-22842]

Notice of Opportunity To Participate: Criteria and Application
Procedures for Participation in the Military Airport Program (MAP)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of criteria and application procedures.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the criteria, application procedures,
and schedule to be applied by the Secretary of Transportation in
designating or redesignating a maximum of 15 current joint-use or
former military airports (at any one time), seeking a designation or
redesignation to participate in the MAP for the purposes of capital
development funding assistance.

DATES: Applications must be received on or before February 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit a signed original of Standard Form (SF) 424,
``Application for Federal Assistance,'' prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-102, available at http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/ along with all supporting and justifying documentation
required by this notice. Applicant must specifically request to be
considered for designation or redesignation to participate in the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 MAP. Submission(s) should be sent to the Regional
FAA Airports Division or Airports District Office that serves the
airport. Applicants may find the proper office on the FAA Web site
http://www.faa.gov/airports/news_information/contact_info/regional/ or
may contact the office below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan DiMartino
(Jonathan.DiMartino@faa.gov), Airports Financial Assistance Division
(APP-500), Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Description of the Program

    The MAP provides capital development assistance to civil airport
sponsors of designated current joint-use military airfields or former
military airports that are included in the FAA's National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airports designated to the MAP may
be able to receive grant funds from a set-aside (currently four percent
of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) discretionary funds) for airport
development, including certain projects not otherwise eligible for AIP
assistance. These airports are also eligible to receive grants from
other categories of AIP funding.
    The Secretary considers for designation only current joint-use or
former military airports that meet the criteria set forth under
``Designation Considerations,'' below.

Number of Airports

    A maximum of 15 airports per fiscal year may participate in the
MAP, of which three may be General Aviation (GA) airports. There are
twelve slots available in FY 2017. Of the twelve slots available, there
are two GA slots available in FY 2017.

Term of Designation

    The maximum term is five fiscal years following designation. The
FAA can designate airports for a period of less than five years. The
FAA will evaluate the conversion needs of the airport in its capital
development plan to determine the appropriate length of designation.

Redesignation

    Previously designated airports may apply for redesignation to an
additional term or terms that may not exceed five years per each. Those
airports must meet current eligibility requirements outlined in 49
U.S.C. 47118(a) at the beginning of each grant period. The FAA will
evaluate applications for redesignation primarily in terms of justified
projects specifically fundable only under the MAP as redesignees
generally tend to have fewer conversion needs than new candidates. The
FAA's goal is to graduate MAP airports to regular AIP participation by
successfully converting these airports to civilian airport operations.

Eligible Projects

    In addition to eligible AIP projects, the MAP can fund fuel farms,
utility systems, surface automobile parking lots, hangars, and air
cargo terminals up to 50,000 square feet. A designated or redesignated
military airport can receive not more than $7,000,000 in each fiscal
year to construct, improve, or repair terminal building facilities. In
addition, a designated or redesignated military airport can receive not
more than $7,000,000 each fiscal year for MAP eligible projects
including hangars, cargo facilities, fuel farms, automobile surface
parking, or utility work.

Designation Considerations

    The MAP allows the Secretary of Transportation to designate current
joint-use or former military airports (other than an airport so
designated before August 24, 1994) to receive grants from the AIP if
they meet the following general requirements:
    (1) The airport is a former military installation closed or
realigned under:
    (a) Section 2687 of title 10 (announcement of closures of large
Department of Defense installations after September 30, 1977);
    (b) Section 201 of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base
Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) (10 U.S.C. 2687 note); or
    (c) Section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note); or
    (2) The airport is a military installation with both military and
civil aircraft operations; and
    (3) The airport is classified as a commercial service or reliever
airport in the NPIAS. (See 49 U.S.C. 47105(b)(2)). In addition, three
of the designated airports, if included in the NPIAS, may be GA
airports that were former military installations closed or realigned
under BRAC, as amended, or 10 U.S.C. 2687. (See 49 U.S.C. 47118(g)).
Therefore, a GA airport can only qualify under (1) above. ``General
aviation airport'' means a public airport that is located in a State
that, as determined by the Secretary: (A) does not have scheduled
service; or (B) has scheduled service with fewer than 2,500 passenger
boardings per year.
    In designating new candidate airports, the Secretary shall consider
if a grant will:
    (1) Reduce delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of
annual

delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings; or
    (2) Enhance airport and air traffic control system capacity in a
metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight delays.

The application for new designations will be evaluated in terms of how
the proposed projects will contribute to reducing delays and/or how the
airport will enhance air traffic or airport system capacity and provide
adequate user services.

Project Evaluation

    Recently realigned or closed military airports, as well as active
military airfields with new joint-use agreements, generally have the
greatest need of funding assistance for conversion to or incorporation
of civil airport operations. Newly converted airports and new joint-use
locations frequently have minimal capital development resources and
will therefore receive priority consideration for designation and MAP
funding. The FAA will evaluate the need for eligible projects based
upon information in the candidate airport's five-year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP).
    (1) The FAA will evaluate candidate airports and any reliever role
that they may perform for nearby airports based on the following
specific factors:
     Compatibility of airport roles and the ability of the
airport to provide an adequate airport facility;
     The capability of the candidate airport and its airside
and landside complex to serve aircraft that otherwise must use a
congested airport;
     Landside surface access;
     Airport operational capability, including peak hour and
annual capacities of the candidate airport;
     Potential of other metropolitan area airports to relieve
the congested airport;
     Ability to satisfy, relieve, or meet air cargo demand
within the metropolitan area;
     Forecasted aircraft and passenger levels, type of
commercial service anticipated, i.e. scheduled or chartered commercial
service;
     Type and capacity of aircraft projected to serve the
airport and level of operations at the congested airport and the
candidate airport;
     The potential for the candidate airport to be served by
aircraft or users, including the airlines, serving the congested
airport;
     Ability to replace an existing commercial service or
reliever airport serving the area; and
     Any other documentation to support the FAA designation of
the candidate airport.
    (2) The FAA will evaluate the extent to which development needs
funded through the MAP will make the airport a viable civilian airport
that will enhance system capacity or reduce delays.

Application Procedures and Required Documentation

    Airport sponsors applying for designation or redesignation must
complete and submit an SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance, and
provide supporting documentation to the appropriate FAA Airports
regional or district office serving that airport. Sponsors may obtain
this fillable form at http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/.
    Applicants must fill out this form completely, including the
following:
     Mark Item 1, Type of Submission as a ``pre-application''
and indicate it is for ``construction''.
     Mark item 8, Type of Application as ``new'', and in
``other'', fill in ``Military Airport Program''.
     Fill in Item 11, Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project.
``Designation (or redesignation) to the Military Airport Program''.
     Under Item 15a, Estimated Funding, indicate the total
amount of funding requested from the MAP during the entire term for
which you are applying.

Supporting Documentation

    A. Identification as a Current or Former Military Airport. The
application must identify the airport as either a current or former
military airport and indicate whether it was:
    (1) Closed or realigned under Section 201 of the Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, and/or
Section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
(Installations Approved for Closure by the Defense Base Realignment and
Closure Commissions), or
    (2) Closed or realigned pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec.  2687 as excess
property (bases announced for closure by Department of Defense (DOD)
pursuant to this title after September 30, 1977 (this is the date of
announcement for closure)), or
    (3) A military installation with both military and civil aircraft
operations. A general aviation airport applying for the MAP may be
joint-use but must also qualify under (1) or (2) above.
    B. Qualifications for MAP. Submit documents for (1) through (8)
below:
    (1) Documentation that the airport meets the definition of a
``public airport'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. Sec.  47102(20).
    (2) Documentation indicating the required environmental review for
civil reuse or joint-use of the military airfield has been completed.
This environmental review need not include review of the individual
projects to be funded by the MAP. Rather, the documentation must
reflect that the environmental review necessary to convey the property,
enter into a long-term lease, or finalize a joint-use agreement has
been completed. The military department conveying or leasing the
property, or entering into a joint-use agreement, has the lead
responsibility for this environmental review. To meet AIP requirements,
the environmental reviews and approvals must indicate that the operator
or owner of the airport has good title that is satisfactory to the
Secretary or assures, to the FAA's satisfaction, that good title will
be acquired.
    (3) For a former military airport, documentation that the eligible
airport sponsor holds or will hold satisfactory title, a long-term
lease in furtherance of conveyance of property for airport purposes, or
a long-term interim lease for 25 years or longer to the property on
which the civil airport is being located. Documentation that an
application for surplus or BRAC airport property has been accepted by
the Federal Government is sufficient to indicate the eligible airport
sponsor holds or will hold satisfactory title or a long-term lease.
    (4) For a current military airport, documentation that the airport
sponsor has an existing joint-use agreement with the military
department having jurisdiction over the airport. For all first time
applicants, a copy of the existing joint-use agreement must be
submitted with the application. This is necessary so the FAA can
legally issue grants to the sponsor. Here and in (3) directly above,
the airport must possess the necessary property rights in order to
accept a grant for its proposed projects during FY 2016.
    (5) Documentation that the airport is classified as a ``commercial
service airport'' or a ``reliever airport'' as defined in 49 U.S.C.
47102(7) and 47102(23).
    (6) Documentation that the airport owner is an eligible airport
``sponsor,'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(26).
    (7) Documentation that the airport has a five-year CIP indicating
all eligible grant projects requested to be funded either from the MAP
or other portions of the AIP and an FAA approved Airport Layout Plan
(ALP).
    (8) For commercial service airports, a business/marketing plan or
equivalent must be submitted with the application. For relievers or
general aviation

airports, other planning documents may be submitted.
    C. Evaluation Factors. Submit information on the items below to
assist in the FAA's evaluation:
    (1) Information identifying the existing and potential levels of
visual or instrument operations and aeronautical activity at the
current or former military airport and, if applicable, the congested
airport. Also, if applicable, information on how the airport
contributes to the air traffic system or airport system capacity. If
served by commercial air carriers, the revenue passenger and cargo
levels must be provided.
    (2) A description of the airport's projected civil role and
development needs for transitioning from use as a military airfield to
a civil airport. Include how development projects would serve to reduce
delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays in
commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings; or enhance
capacity in a metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight
delays.
    (3) A description of the existing airspace capacity. Describe how
anticipated new operations would affect the surrounding airspace and
air traffic flow patterns in the metropolitan area in or near the
airport. Include a discussion of whether operations at this airport
create airspace conflicts that may cause congestion or whether air
traffic works into the flow of other air traffic in the area.
    (4) A description of the airport's five-year CIP, including a
discussion of major projects, their priorities, projected schedule for
project accomplishment, and estimated costs. The CIP must specifically
identify the safety, capacity, and conversion related projects,
associated costs, and projected five-year schedule of project
construction, including those requested for consideration for MAP
funding.
    (5) A description of those projects that are consistent with the
role of the airport and effectively contribute to the joint-use or
conversion of the airfield to a civil airport. The projects can be
related to various improvement categories depending on what is needed
to convert from military to civil airport use, to meet required civil
airport standards, and/or to provide capacity to the airport and/or
airport system. The projects selected (e.g., safety-related,
conversion-related, and/or capacity-related) must be identified and
fully explained based on the airport's planned use. Those projects that
may be eligible under MAP, if needed for conversion or capacity-related
purposes, must be clearly indicated and include the following
information:

Airside

     Modification of airport or military airfield for safety
purposes, including airport pavement modifications, marking, lighting,
strengthening, drainage or modifying other structures or features in
the airport environs to meet civil standards for approach, departure
and other protected airport surfaces as described in 14 CFR part 77 or
standards set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13.
     Construction of facilities or support facilities, such as
passenger terminal gates, aprons for passenger terminals, taxiways to
new terminal facilities, aircraft parking, and cargo facilities to
accommodate civil use.
     Modification of airport or military utilities (electrical
distribution systems, communications lines, water, sewer, storm
drainage) to meet civil standards. Also, modifications that allow
utilities on the civil airport to operate independently, where other
portions of the base are conveyed to entities other than the airport
sponsor or retained by the Government.
     Purchase, rehabilitation, or modification of airport and
airport support facilities and equipment, including snow removal,
aircraft rescue, firefighting buildings and equipment, airport
security, lighting vaults, and reconfiguration or relocation of
eligible buildings for more efficient civil airport operations.
     Modification of airport or military airfield fuel systems
and fuel farms to accommodate civil aviation use.
     Acquisition of additional land for runway protection
zones, other approach protection, or airport development.
     Cargo facility requirements.
     Modifications which will permit the airfield to
accommodate general aviation users.

Landside

     Construction of surface parking areas and access roads to
accommodate automobiles in the airport terminal and air cargo areas and
provide an adequate level of access to the airport.
     Construction or relocation of access roads to provide
efficient and convenient movement of vehicular traffic to, on, and from
the airport, including access to passenger, air cargo, fixed base
operations, and aircraft maintenance areas.
     Modification or construction of facilities such as
passenger terminals, surface automobile parking lots, hangars, air
cargo terminal buildings, and access roads to cargo facilities to
accommodate civil use.
    (6) An evaluation of the ability of surface transportation
facilities (e.g., road, rail, high-speed rail, and/or maritime) to
provide intermodal connections.
    (7) A description of the type and level of aviation and community
interest in the civil use of a current or former military airport.
    (8) One copy of the FAA-approved ALP for each copy of the
application. The ALP or supporting information must clearly show
capacity and conversion related projects. Other information such as
project costs, schedule, project justification, other maps and drawings
showing the project locations, and any other supporting documentation
that would make the application easier to understand should also be
included. You may also provide photos, which would further describe the
airport, projects, and otherwise clarify certain aspects of this
application. These maps and ALPs should be cross-referenced with the
project costs and project descriptions.

Redesignation of Airports Previously Designated and Applying for up to
an Additional Five Years in the Program

    Airports applying for redesignation to the MAP must submit the same
information required by new candidate airports applying for a new
designation. On the SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance,
prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102,
airports must indicate their application is for redesignation to the
MAP. In addition to the information required for new candidates,
airports requesting redesignation must also explain:
    (1) Why a redesignation and additional MAP eligible project funding
is needed to accomplish the conversion to meet the civilian role of the
airport and the preferred time period for redesignation (not to exceed
five years);
    (2) Why funding of eligible work under other categories of AIP or
other sources of funding would not accomplish the development needs of
the airport; and
    (3) Why, based on the previously funded MAP projects, the projects
and/or funding levels were insufficient to accomplish the airport
conversion needs and development goals.
    In addition to the information requested above, airports applying
for redesignation must provide a reanalysis of their original business/
marketing plans (for example, a plan previously funded by the Office of
Economic Adjustment or the original Master Plan

for the airport) and prepare a report. If there is not an existing
business/marketing plan a business/marketing plan or strategy must be
developed. The report must contain:
    (1) Whether the original business/marketing plan is still
appropriate;
    (2) Is the airport continuing to work towards the goals established
in the business/marketing plan;
    (3) Discuss how the MAP projects contained in the application
contribute to the goals of the sponsor and their plans; and
    (4) If the business/marketing plan no longer applies to the current
goals of the airport, how has the airport altered the business/
marketing plan to establish a new direction for the facility and how do
the projects contained in the MAP application aid in the completion of
the new direction and goals and by what date does the sponsor
anticipate graduating from the MAP.
    This notice is issued pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 47118.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on November 14, 2016.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2016-29318 Filed 12-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30884-30887]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[USCG-2011-0247]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Kelley's Island Swim, Lake Erie;
Kelley's Island, Lakeside, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a permanent Special
Local Regulation on Lake Erie, Lakeside, Ohio. This regulation is
intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Erie during the
annual Kelley's Island Swim, which takes place in the second half of
July. This special local regulated area is necessary to protect
swimmers from vessel traffic.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0247 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail BM1 Tracy Girard, Response Department, MSU Toledo,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0247), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when the comment is successfully
transmitted; a comment submitted via fax, hand delivery, or mail, will
be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when the
comment is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend
that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or
a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu, select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0247'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0247'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Basis and Purpose

    Each year an organized swimming event takes place in Lake Erie in
which individuals swim the four miles between Lakeside and Kelleys
Island, OH. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that
swimmers in close proximity to watercraft and in the shipping channel
pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property.
Establishing a Special Local Regulation around the location of the
race's course will help ensure the safety of persons and property at
these events and help minimize the associated risks.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule is intended to ensure safety of the public and
vessels during the annual Kelley's Island Swim. This proposed rule will
become effective 30 days after the final rule is published in the
Federal Register and will remain permanently effective. However, the
proposed Special Local Regulation will only be enforced annually on the
second or third week in July from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. Vessels seeking
to transit through the area of the race should contact the Captain of
the Port or his or her on-scene representative. The on-scene
representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state or local law
enforcement, or sponsor provided vessel assigned to patrol the event.
The on-scene representatives may permit vessels to transit the area
when no race activity is occurring.
    This proposed Special Local Regulation will encompass all navigable
waters of the United States on Lake Erie, Lakeside OH, bound by a line
extending from a point on land at the Lakeside dock at positions
41[deg]32'51.96'' N; 082[deg]45'3.15'' W and 41[deg]32'52.21'' N;
082[deg]45'2.19'' W and a line extending to Kelley's Island dock to
positions 41[deg]35'24.59'' N; 082[deg]42'16.61'' W and
41[deg]35'24.44'' N; 082[deg]42'16.04'' W.
    The Captain of the Port will notify the affected segments of the
public of the enforcement of this proposed Special Local Regulation by
all appropriate means. Means of notification may include publication of
Notice of Enforcement (NOE) in the Federal Register, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners, and Local Notice to Mariners.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this proposed
rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that
it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with
other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or
loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.
The Special Local Regulation will be relatively small and exist for a
relatively short time. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within
that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain

conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the area when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the portion Lake Erie, Lakeside, OH
discussed above between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m. on the second or third week
in July each year.
    This proposed Special Local Regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons: This proposed rule, while permanent, will only be
enforced for approximately 4 hours each year on the day of the swimming
event.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact BM1 Tracy Girard, Response
Department, MSU Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or
any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule
involves the establishment of a Special Local Regulation and is
therefore categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h),
of the Instruction. During the annual permitting process for this
swimming

event an environmental analysis will be conducted to include the
effects of this proposed Special Local Regulation. Thus, no preliminary
environmental analysis checklist or Categorical Exclusion Determination
(CED) are required for this proposed rulemaking action. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add Sec.  100.921 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.921  Kelley's Island Swim, Lake Erie, Lakeside, OH.

    (a) Regulated Area. The regulated area includes all U.S. navigable
waters of lake Erie, Lakeside, OH, bound by a line extending from a
point on land at the Lakeside dock at positions 41[deg]32'51.96'' N;
082[deg]45'3.15'' W and 41[deg]32'52.21'' N; 082[deg]45'2.19'' W and a
line extending to Kelley's Island dock to positions 41[deg]35'24.59''
N; 082[deg]42'16.61'' W and 41[deg]35'24.44'' N; 082[deg] 42'16.04''
W.1'35.78'' W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (b) Special Local Regulations. The regulations of Sec.  100.901
apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the
regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander.
    (c) Enforcement Period. These Special Local Regulations will be
enforced annually on one day from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. during the
second or third week in July.

    Dated: May 11, 2011.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2011-13181 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50140-50141]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0019]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 24 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective August 16, 2013. The exemptions
expire on August 16, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/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.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's 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, or other
entity). 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).

Background

    On May 31, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 24 individuals and requested
comments from the public (78 FR 32704). The public comment period
closed on July 1, 2013, and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 24 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 24 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 38 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the May 31, 2013, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
considered and discussed below.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is in favor of
granting an exemption to Kyle P. Cerra, Jeffrey S. Hubbell, and Thomas
R. Yecker after reviewing their driving histories.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 24 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Herlen D. Barner (TN), Paul D. Blakeslee (AK), James W. Bledsoe
(AL), Bryant M. Bosler (IL), Daniel L. Bosley (KY), Richard J. Buckman
(MA), Fred S. Carpenter (NJ), Verland G. Casper (WI), Kyle P. Cerra
(PA), David M. Galler (MO), Raymond K. Harper (KS), Shane B. Henninger
(IA), Ronald A. Hersch (NJ), Lucius L. Holmes, Jr. (VA), Jeffrey S.
Hubbell (PA), Jason L. Jarman (OK), Kevin T. Johnson (SD), Randall L.
Krider (IN), Jose R. Monroy (IL), Eric J. Mullins (VA), William S.
Panoch (WI), James E. Smith (TN), Kevin R. Treichel (IA), and Thomas R.
Yecker (PA) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject
to the conditions listed under ``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the 1/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. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: August 8, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-20014 Filed 8-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, OECA 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0358 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title National Emission Standard for hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Pharmaceutical Production, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGG 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR 1781.02 9. Keywords Air Pollution Control, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection 10. Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of pharmaceuticals production operations. Respondents must submit one time reports of initial performance tests and semiannual reports of noncompliance. Recordkeeping of parameters related to air pollution control technologies is required. The reports and records will be used to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 103 b. Total annual responses 209 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 20 % c. Total annual hours requested 161,326 d. Current OMB inventory 350,501 e. Difference ( 189,175) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment ( 189,175) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 3.39 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 4.16 c. Total annualized cost requested 7.55 d. Current OMB inventory 48 e. Difference ( 40.45) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment ( 40.45)

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Marcia B. Mia Phone: 202 564 7042 OMB 83 I 10/ 95