[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42972-42973]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2020-32]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Zipline
International, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2020-0499
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.

    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2020.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2020-0499.
    Petitioner: Zipline International, Inc.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.3(a); 61.133; 91.7(a);
91.119(b)-(c); 91.121; 91.151(a); 135.25(a); 135.63(c)-(d); 135.149(a);
135.161(a); 135.203(a); 135.209(a); 135.243(b)(1)-(3); 135.267;
135.337(b)(1); 135.338(b)(1); 135.339(e)(3) and (4); and 135.340(e)(3)
and (4).
    Description of Relief Sought: Zipline International, Inc. petitions
for exemptions to conduct operations under part 135 using unmanned
aircraft systems for medical cargo deliveries with a part 119 air
carrier certificate in the United States.

[FR Doc. 2020-15236 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45231-45233]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-538-000]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Gateway Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues: Sendero Carlsbad Gateway, LLC

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Gateway Project involving
construction and operation of facilities by Sendero Carlsbad Gateway,
LLC (Gateway) in Eddy County, New Mexico and Culberson County, Texas.
The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the
Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time on September 28, 2018.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider and address all filed comments during the
preparation of the EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on August 9, 2018, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP18-538-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    Gateway provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must

first create an account by clicking on eRegister. You will be asked to
select the type of filing you are making; a comment on a particular
project is considered a Comment on a Filing; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP18-538-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Gateway proposes to construct, operate, and maintain various
facilities in connection with its proposed Gateway Project located in
Eddy County, New Mexico and Culberson County, Texas. The Gateway
Project would provide about 400 million standard cubic feet of natural
gas per day from Gateway's newly expanded Carlsbad Plant (a cryogenic
gas processing plant) to the Agua Blanca intrastate pipeline owned by
White Water Midstream, LLC. According to Gateway, its project would
help alleviate natural gas supply delivery constraints in southeast New
Mexico and satisfy overall demand in the western region of the United
States.
    The Gateway Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Approximately 23 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas
transmission pipeline;
     A new meter station (including a mainline block valve and
pig \1\ launcher) within the existing Carlsbad Plant;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A mainline block valve at milepost 15.0; and
     A pig receiver and mainline block valve at milepost 23.3
near a White Water Midstream, LLC meter station.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called eLibrary or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 334
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, Gateway would maintain about 100 acres of land
for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining
acreage would be restored and would revert to former uses. About 82
percent of the proposed pipeline route parallels existing pipeline,
utility, or road rights-of-way.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species;
     Public safety; and
     Cumulative impacts.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in the public record through
eLibrary,\3\ and issued for an allotted comment period. Commission
staff will consider and address all comments on the EA before making
recommendations to the Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the
opportunity to address your comments, please carefully follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices
(SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government
agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's
potential effects on historic properties.\5\ Commission staff will
define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in
consultation with the SHPOs as the project develops. On natural gas
facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject
to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way,
contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads).
The EA for this project will document findings on the impacts on
historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under
section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that information
related to this environmental review is sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Mailing List Update Form (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number in
the Docket Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-
538). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For

assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 29, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19236 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51204-51205]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4133-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Colorado; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4133-DR), dated July 26, 2013,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 26, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 26, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of
Colorado resulting from the Royal Gorge Fire during the period of
June 11-16, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Colorado.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Disaster Unemployment Assistance
and Public Assistance in the designated area and Hazard Mitigation
throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of
the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford
Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. McCool, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Colorado have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Fremont County for Disaster Unemployment Assistance.
    Fremont County for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Colorado are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-20324 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49391-49396]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20282]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0588; FRL9450-5]

Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Colorado; Smoke, Opacity and Sulfur Dioxide Rule
Revisions; Regulation 1

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1 adopted by the State of Colorado
on July 21, 2005 and submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006. The revisions
involve the use of obscurants during military exercises while
maintaining air quality, averaged emission rate determination over time
and recordkeeping requirements. Colorado's Regulation 1 governs
opacity, particulate, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions from sources. EPA has determined that most of
the revisions in Colorado's submittal are consistent with the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and should be approved, but a revision to a provision
governing fuel burning equipment is not and should be disapproved.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0588 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0588. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Komp, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Mailcode: 8P-AR, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Purpose of This Action
III. Background of State's Submittals
IV. EPA Analysis of State's Submittals
V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (v) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review, the
initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and the initials NAAQS mean or refer to National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    (vi) The initials CO mean Carbon Monoxide, NO2 mean Nitrogen
Dioxide and SO2 mean Sulfur Dioxide.
    (vii) The initials BACT mean Best Available Control Technology.
    (viii) The word Base means United States Army Fort Carson
Military Base and the word PCMS means Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Purpose of This Action

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1 adopted by the State of Colorado
on July 21, 2005 and submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006. The revisions
involve the deletion of obsolete, adoption of new, and clarification of
ambiguous provisions. Colorado's Regulation 1 governs opacity, and
particulate, SO2, and CO emissions from sources. EPA has determined
that most of the revisions in Colorado's submittal are consistent with
the CAA and should be approved, but a revision to a provision governing
fuel burning equipment is not and should be disapproved.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal

rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional
office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

III. Background of State's Submittals

    The State's August 8, 2006 submittal consisted of one revision to
the State's Regulation 1. The revision was adopted by the State on July
21, 2005 and revises regulations regarding the use of smoke during
military operations, equipment requirements and work practices
(abatement and control measures intended to control the emissions of
particulates), smokes and SO2 from new and existing
stationary sources.
    It also provides a new numbering scheme for each section of the
regulation. The revisions to Regulation 1 are described for each
section where a revision was made within Regulation 1.

Introduction

    The State revised the numbering of Regulation 1. Previously,
subsections were designated only by the letter or number (for example,
A or 1) assigned to that subsection. In the revision, every subsection
is designated by full reference to it (for example, III.A or III.A.1).
    The State adopted EPA test method 9 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4)
as it is applied to Standards of Performance for Steel Plants (40 CFR
60.275a).

Section I. Applicability of: Referenced Federal Regulations

    Section I.A. provides that Regulation 1 provisions are applicable
statewide. An exception is made if a provision within Regulation 1 is
made specifically applicable to attainment, attainment/maintenance or
nonattainment areas. Consistent with its use of the term elsewhere, the
State added the attainment/maintenance nomenclature as a revision to
Section I.A.

Section II. Smoke and Opacity

    Section II.A.1 provides that no owner or operator of a source shall
allow or cause emissions to be released into the atmosphere of any air
pollutant in excess of 20 percent opacity. Sources are to use EPA Test
Method 9 to determine opacity but the State added language to the
section stating that the use of the test method shall not preclude the
use of other credible evidence. Section II.A.3 was revised to clarify
that the emission limit on pilot plants and experimental operations is
taken over a sixty minute time period.
    The submittal indicated that revisions were made to Section II.C.
regarding the State's Open Burning regulation. However, upon review of
the revisions the language appears to be unchanged from a previous
revision the State had made to its Open Burning regulations under the
Smoke and Opacity section of Regulation 1. EPA approved this revision
in an earlier action (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011).
    The State revised Regulation 1 to address the United States Army
Fort Carson Military Base's (Base) need to use military smoke or
obscurants (both which will be referred to as obscurants in this
proposed action) during training.
    As background information prior to the revision, Section II.A of
Regulation 1 set general standards prohibiting emissions into the
atmosphere of any air pollutant which is in excess of 20% opacity. In
recognition that obscurant generation in training by the United States
Army purposefully intends to be at or near 100 percent opacity, the
State added provisions for obscurant generation in 1998. Section II.D
set specific limitations for the use of obscurants at the Base and the
Pin[oacute]n Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) at 100 percent opacity subject
to specified limitations and conditions.
    The revisions to Section II.D in the August 8, 2006 submission
include the replacement of the specific reference to fog oil with a
general reference to obscurants allowing the Army the use of other
materials to generate obscurants. The revision removed the daily
limitation to the use of obscurants, and replaces a three-kilometer
buffer zone where obscurants could not be generated with a prohibition
on transport of visible emissions from obscurants outside the
boundaries of the facilities.
    Other revisions to Section II.D added the measures to protect air
quality beyond the Base and PCMS' boundary that must be executed before
and during obscurant training. These measures included analyzing
meteorological conditions before training with obscurants begins to
ensure that atmospheric conditions meet established criteria for the
dispersion of the obscurants. The revisions specify precluding
obscurant training if unsatisfactory atmospheric dispersion conditions
exist and stopping such training if atmospheric dispersion conditions
deteriorate. Base and PCMS personnel are to be posted as observers on
the obscurant training and are trained to anticipate the probability of
obscurants drifting across the Base and PCMS boundaries. These
personnel will have the authority to cease operations. The Base and
PCMS commanders shall be responsible for compliance with the
stipulations of Section II.D.

Section III. Particulate Matter

    Prior to its revision, Section III.A.1.d stated that if two or more
fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a pound per million heat input
(BTU) basis. The State revised this so that the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a lb/hour basis. In our July 5,
2005 letter, we expressed that it was unclear why the regulation was
changed. We suggested to the State that a testing protocol be developed
to determine compliance with the revised emission rate.
    A revision to Section III.B.2.a of Regulation 1 changed the areas
where an incinerator emission standard applies. Previously, the
emission rate limitation of 0.10 grain of particulate matter per
standard cubic foot applied only to incinerators located in
nonattainment areas. The revision, consistent with changes elsewhere,
expanded the applicability to include incinerators located in
attainment/maintenance areas as well.
    Finally, the August 8, 2006 submittal changed Section III.C.1.a.
regarding manufacturing processes emission rates, to clarify that the
applicability of the section is to process equipment with a design rate
of 30 tons per hour or less.

Section IV. Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements for New and
Existing Sources

    Fluidized bed catalytic units at petroleum refineries located in
nonattainment areas are required to install, calibrate, maintain and
operate continuous emission monitoring systems for the measurement of
CO. This requirement was expanded, consistent with changes elsewhere,
to include the same types of units located in attainment/maintenance
areas.

Section VI. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Regulations

    Averaging times for existing sources of SO2 unless
specified in other sections of Regulation 1 shall be a three hour
rolling average (Section VI.A.1). Prior to the revision only sources
utilizing a CEM were subject to the 3 hour rolling average.
Requirements regarding frequency of fuel sampling were eliminated from
this section. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements were modified in
Section VI.A.5 to allow the State to require a longer period than the
two years for keeping records on site. Previously, Section IV.H of
Regulation 1 required only a two year limit to keeping records. The
revision to Section VI.A.5 and

Section VI.B.7 acknowledge that other applicable regulations could
require longer periods for recordkeeping without conflicting with the
two year recordkeeping period specified in Section IV.H.
    In Section VI.A.3.f, the State eliminated a reference to new
sources submitting an averaging plan, as the section refers only to
existing sources.
    Previously, the State had proposed an increase in the emission
limit for petroleum refining and refineries processing 1,000 or more
barrels per day of oil (Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g.(ii)). The
existing emission limit of 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day
was revised to 0.7 lbs per barrel per day. EPA disapproved the
relaxation of these limits in a previous action (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26,
2011). In the August 8, 2006 submittal, the State reinstated the
language that existed in the SIP prior to the previous proposed
revision.
    The State added Section VI.B.4.i to Regulation 1 that addressed
emission limitations for new cement manufacturing sources. The emission
limitation reflects verbatim the emission limitations for existing
cement manufacturing found within Section VI.A.3.f with the exception
that new sources must submit an emission limit averaging plan with
their construction permit application. Revisions to section VI.B.4.i
regarding cement manufacturing incorporated the revised averaging times
found in section VI.A.3.f and stated that records showing compliance
with the emission standard specified in Section VI.A.3.f are to be
maintained by the owner for a period of two or five years dependent
upon the conditions stated in the source's operating permit.
    The State reinstated Section VI.B.5, which specifies that new
sources of SO2, not specifically regulated in other sections
of Regulation 1 are limited in their emissions to no more than two tons
per day of SO2 or must utilize Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) as determined by the State. EPA previously
disapproved the removal of Section VI.B.5 (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011).

Section VIII. Restrictions on Use of Oil as a Backup Fuel

    In Section VIII.A., Applicability, the reference to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and
Gates Rubber Company as sources using oil as a backup fuel is deleted
since the sources no longer operate in the Denver, Colorado
metropolitan area.

Section IX. Emission Regulations Concerning Areas Which Are
Nonattainment for Carbon Monoxide

    The State added the attainment/maintenance nomenclature as a
revision to Section IX. Prior to the revision, refinery fluidized bed
catalytic cracking units emitting annually 1,000 or more tons of CO
located in nonattainment areas were subject to an emission limitation
of 500 parts per million by volume of CO averaged over a one hour
period. The State revised this provision to include cracking units in
attainment/maintenance units.

IV. EPA Analysis of State's Submittals

    We have evaluated Colorado's August 8, 2006 submittal regarding
revisions to the State's Regulation 1. EPA had corresponded to the
State regarding the State's proposed revisions prior to their State
adoption on July 21, 2005. In our letters dated March 19, 2001 and
August 8, 2001 to the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, we expressed our
concern regarding a number of issues we are proposing action on today.

Military Exercises Using Smoke at Fort Carson Facilities

    In our March 19, 2001 letter, we expressed concern that the
elimination of the three kilometer buffer smoke between where smoke
could be released and the military property boundary would not be
sufficient to provide assurance that the smoke would not drift over the
military boundary and impact public health. The State and United States
Army alleviated our concerns when both parties agreed to a number of
additional measures to prevent obscurants from crossing the boundary.
These included assessing atmospheric dispersion conditions prior to the
use of the obscurants, the posting of observers, developing procedures
beforehand for the use of obscurants and placing authority to terminate
the use of obscurants in the hands of military personnel directly
involved in the military exercise where the obscurant is being used.
    We do not consider the elimination of the three kilometer buffer
zone a relaxation of previous SIP conditions since the buffer zone
provision was replaced with new provisions that, at a minimum,
compensate for the removal of previous conditions. We are proposing
approval of the revision.

Fuel Burning Units

    Prior to its revision, Section III.A.1.d stated that if two or more
fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a pound per million heat input
(BTU) basis. The State revised this so that the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a lb per hour basis. In our July
5, 2005 letter, we expressed that it was unclear why the regulation was
changed. We suggested to the State that a testing protocol be developed
to determine compliance with the revised emission rate. The State did
not develop a testing protocol to determine compliance, and did not
explain the basis for the change. It is unclear how the change is
consistent with the emissions limits provided for individual fuel
burning units, which are expressed in lbs per million BTU, and whether
the change constitutes a relaxation of the provision. Given the lack of
a testing protocol for compliance, the apparent inconsistency with the
limits for individual fuel burning units, and the possible relaxation
of the provision, EPA proposes to disapprove the revision to Section
III.A.1.d.

Process Design, Averaging Times, and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The State revised Section III.C.1.a to clarify the applicability of
provisions to manufacturing process equipment. We propose to approve
this revision, which confirms the State's existing practice. However,
we note that the submittal does not show the same change to Section
III.C.1.b, in which the reference to process weight remains. The State
should revise III.C.1.b correspondingly.
    EPA noted in our August 8, 2001 letter that the averaging time for
all SO2 emissions standards should be a three hour rolling
average. EPA reasoned that section VI.A applies to different types of
sources with varying sulfur in fuel content. A 24 hour sampling period
is too long to assess the amount of SO2 being emitted when
the sulfur in fuel can vary over shorter periods. The State expanded
the applicability of the default averaging period, a three hour rolling
average, in section VI.A.1. EPA proposes approval of this revision.
    The State also revised the recordkeeping provisions to require
records be retained for a longer period than two years if other
applicable regulations require it. We are approving the State's
clarification of the recordkeeping requirements.

SO2 Emission Rates for Petroleum Refining and New Sources

    The State had proposed a SO2 emission limit relaxation
in Sections VI.B.4.e and g pertaining, respectively, to petroleum
refineries and to shale oil refineries that process 1,000 or more

barrels of oil per day. We had expressed concern in our August 8, 2001
letter to the State telling the State that we viewed this as a
relaxation to the SIP. Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provides that we cannot approve a revision to a SIP if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of
the Act. The State was asked to submit an analysis indicating whether
the relaxation would interfere with the SO2 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or the SO2 increments.
    The State responded to EPA's concern by attempting to model
compliance with the NAAQS using the proposed SO2 emission
limits of 0.7 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day. In the State's
July 21, 2005 Statement of Basis that accompanied the August 8, 2006
submittal, the State said that modeling with the revised emission
limitations resulted in violations of the NAAQS. The State decided that
the previous emission limitation of 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed
per day should be reinstated to protect the NAAQS, because the modeling
did not support the relaxation of the standard. EPA proposes to approve
the reinstatement of the previous limits in Sections VI.B.4.e and g.
    The State did add requirements in Section VI.B.5 that new sources
not regulated elsewhere in Regulation 1 for SO2 emissions
would be limited to not more than two tons of SO2 per day or be
required to utilize BACT. In a previous submission, the State had
deleted Section VI.B.5. EPA disapproved that submission (76 FR 4540).
The August 8, 2006 submission restores the language that existed (and
continues to exist) in the SIP and therefore makes no change (other
than renumbering) to the provisions. EPA therefore proposes to approve
this submission.

Renumbering and Deletion of Former Sources

    The renumbering of the sections does not modify any substantive
provision of the SIP. EPA therefore proposes to approve it. However,
EPA does not view the renumbering as resubmitting provisions that have
already been approved for inclusion into the SIP, or that previously
have been disapproved, but were not modified in any way other than
renumbering. In particular, EPA's proposed approval of the renumbering
does not constitute approval of existing director's discretion
provisions that were not substantively modified in this submission, or
of director's discretion provisions that were previously disapproved
and that were not substantively modified in this submission (see, for
example, 76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011).
    In Section VIII.A., Applicability, the reference to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and
Gates Rubber Company as sources using oil as a backup fuel was deleted
since the sources no longer operate in the Denver, Colorado
metropolitan area. EPA is proposing to approve the deleted reference to
these sources.

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the Act. The Colorado SIP revisions that are proposed for approval in
this action do not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. For the most part, the revisions do
not make substantive changes that relax the stringency of the Colorado
SIP. As discussed above, the substantive changes to the provisions for
the use of military obscurants, taken as a whole, provide at least
equivalent stringency to the existing provisions. Therefore, the
portions of the revisions proposed for approval satisfy section 110(l)
requirements.

VI. Proposed Action

    We are not acting on purported revisions made to Section II.C.
regarding the State's Open Burning regulation. Upon review of the
revisions, the language was unchanged from a previous revision the
State had made to its Open Burning regulations under the Smoke and
Opacity section of Regulation 1. EPA approved this revision in an
earlier action (76 FR 4540, January 26, 2011). EPA therefore considers
that no revision was submitted for Section II.C.

What EPA Is Proposing To Approve

    We are proposing approving the new numbering scheme for Regulation
1. As discussed above, this proposed approval does not constitute
approval of any renumbered provisions that were not substantively
modified. We propose to approve the State's incorporation by reference
into the SIP of EPA test method 9.
    We are also proposing for approval the use of obscurants by the
United States Army for military exercises at Fort Carson and PCMS under
the prescribed conditions stated in Section II.D. The use of design
rates for determining allowable emissions rates for manufacturing
processes as defined in Section III.C.1.a of Regulation 1 is proposed
for approval.
    The revision to the default averaging time for existing sources of
SO2 (Section VI.A.1) is proposed for approval. The
modification to recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Section
VI.A.5 is also proposed for approval. The reinstatement of Section
VI.B.5, requirements for new sources of SO2 emissions not
regulated elsewhere in Regulation 1, is proposed for approval.
    EPA proposes to approve the deletion of the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site and the Gates Rubber Company in Section
VIII.A. Minor grammatical revisions made throughout the revisions are
also being proposed for approval. The State's use of the term
``attainment/maintenance'' area in Sections I.A., III.B.2.a, IV.D.2,
and IX is proposed for approval.

What EPA Is Disapproving

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the revision to Section III.A.1.d
regarding the maximum allowable emission rate for multiple fuel units.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 28, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-20282 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30620-30621]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0604]

Electronic Submission of Postmarketing Safety Reports Involving
Vaccine Products; Notice of Pilot Project

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) in the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a pilot project to
evaluate its current systems for receiving postmarketing safety reports
involving vaccine products electronically for processing into the
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). As part of this pilot
project, CBER also plans to assess the updated International Conference
on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of
Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E2B(R3) specification for
electronic transmission of vaccine Individual Case Safety Reports
(ICSRs). Participation in the pilot project is open to firms that
submit postmarketing reports into VAERS. CBER plans to accept
participation from up to six applicants. The pilot project is intended
to provide industry and CBER regulatory review staff with an
opportunity to evaluate current system capabilities for sending and
receiving postmarketing safety reports for vaccine products using FDA's
Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG), including the use of the updated
ICH E2B(R3) specification.

DATES: Submit an electronic request to participate in this pilot
project by June 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: If you are interested in participating in this pilot
project, you should submit an electronic request to eSubmitter_program<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lise Stevens, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7323, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-8169, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    CBER regulates certain biological products, including vaccines, and
is committed to advancing the public health through innovative
activities that help ensure the safety, effectiveness, and timely
delivery of these products to patients. This includes improving the
processes for providing certain regulatory submissions to FDA.
    CBER is announcing a pilot project to evaluate its current systems
for receiving postmarketing safety reports involving vaccine products
electronically for processing into VAERS. VAERS is a cooperative
program for vaccine safety of the FDA and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. VAERS collects postmarketing surveillance
information about adverse events (unlabeled, serious events) that occur
after the administration of U.S. licensed vaccines. This includes the
collection of ICSRs that report on adverse experiences related to an
individual patient or subject.
    As part of this pilot project, CBER also wishes to assess the
updated ICH E2B(R3) specification for electronic transmission of
vaccine ICSRs. The ICH E2B(R3) specification addresses the electronic
submission of ICSRs and is intended to improve the inherent quality of
the data, enabling improved handling and analysis of ICSR reports.
    In the Federal Register of February 21, 2014 (79 FR 9908), FDA
announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled
``E2B(R3) Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports
(ICSRs): Implementation Guide--Data Elements and Message
Specification'' (the E2B(R3) implementation guidance), as well as an
appendix to the guidance entitled ``ICSRs Appendix to the
Implementation Guide--Backwards and Forwards Compatibility.'' The
E2B(R3) implementation guidance provides recommendations on the data
elements, terminology, and exchange standards for the electronic
submission of ICSRs. The E2B(R3) implementation guidance also provides
information for the development of software tools for creating,
editing, sending, and receiving electronic ICSR messages. The E2B(R3)
implementation guidance is available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

II. Pilot Project Participation

    The pilot project to evaluate FDA's current systems for receiving
postmarketing safety reports involving vaccine products electronically
into VAERS, as well as to assess the updated ICH E2B(R3) specification,
is to last for approximately 3 months, but it may be extended as
needed. During the pilot, CBER staff will be available to answer any
questions or concerns that may arise. Pilot project participants will
be asked to comment on their experience in the pilot. These comments
and discussions will assist CBER in its development of this electronic
program.

III. Requests for Participation

    Requests to participate in the pilot project should be sent
electronically to eSubmitter_program<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You should
include the following information in your request: Contact name,
contact phone number, and contact email address. Once requests for
participation are received, FDA will contact interested applicants to
discuss the pilot project. FDA is seeking a limited number of
participants (no more than six) to participate in this pilot project.
The pilot project is expect to last approximately 3 months but may be
extended as needed.

    Dated: May 21, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-12291 Filed 5-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33126-33128]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0430]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; South Timbalier Block 22, Gulf of Mexico, Port
Fourchon, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters within a one nautical mile radius around a
capsized vessel in the Gulf of Mexico, South Timbalier block 22, near
Port Fourchon, LA. The temporary safety zone is needed to protect life
and property during emergency salvage operations surrounding the
capsized vessel. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone and
movement of vessels within this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Houma or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from June 24, 2021
through August 2, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from June 15, 2021 until June 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0430 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Next, in the
Document Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Commander Matthew M. Spolarich, Chief of Prevention, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impractible. A safety zone is
necessary to facilitate safe salvage operations surrounding a capsized
vessel that has garnered high media interest and is in a location
frequented by commercial and recreational vessel traffic. Immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with recovery salvage operations. We must establish this safety zone by
June 15, 2021 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be against the public interest because immediate action
is needed to continue ongoing recovery salvage operations.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Marine
Safety Unit Houma (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the recovery salvage operations continuing through
August 2, 2021, will be a safety concern for anyone within a one
nautical mile radius around the capsized vessel in South Timbalier
Block 22 of the Gulf of Mexico at position 29[deg]00'25.7877'' N,
090[deg]11'52.9852'' W. This rule is needed to protect life and
property on the navigable waters while recovery salvage operations are
ongoing.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from June 15, 2021
through August 02, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters within a one nautical mile radius around position
29[deg]00'25.7877'' N, 090[deg]11'52.9852'' W,

in South Timbalier Block 22 of the Gulf of Mexico, near Port Fouchon,
LA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect life and property
on these navigable waters for the duration of emergency recovery
salvage operations related to the capsized vessel. No vessel or person
will be permitted to enter and move within the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control
of USCG Marine Safety Unit Houma. Vessels requiring entry into this
safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
Persons and vessels permitted to enter or to move within this safety
zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all
lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the
enforcement periods and changes through Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety
Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited scale
of the safety zone and the ease of vessel traffic navigating around
said zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit entry within a one nautical mile radius
of vessels and machinery being used by personnel response operations to
a capsized vessel. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--[REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS]

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0430 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0430  Safety Zone; South Timbalier Block 22, Gulf of
Mexico, Port Fourchon, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters within a one nautical mile radius of the capsized vessel and
emergency response operations taking place at 29[deg]00'25.7877'' N,
090[deg]11'52.9852'' W.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective without actual
notice from June 24, 2021 through August 02, 2021. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 15, 2021 until June
24, 2021.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into or remaining within this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety
Unit (COTP) or designated representative. A designated representative
is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Marine Safety
Unit Houma.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by COTP or the designated representative.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices
to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs)
as appropriate.

J.W. Russell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit
Houma.
[FR Doc. 2021-13310 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37719-37720]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14916]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0384; FRL-9826-3]

Interim Final Determination To Defer Sanctions; California; South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to defer the
imposition of sanctions based on a proposed approval of revisions to
the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) portion of
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in
this Federal Register. The revisions concern the Clean Air Act (CAA)
contingency measure requirement for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin
(South Coast).

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on June 24, 2013.
However, comments will be accepted until July 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0384, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Background

    On November 9, 2012 (76 FR 69928), we published a partial approval
and partial disapproval of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State
Strategy (collectively the ``South Coast PM2.5 SIP''). As
part of this action, EPA disapproved the contingency measure provisions
in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP as failing to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012, which require
that the SIP for each PM2.5 nonattainment area contain
contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to make
reasonable further progress or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. See 76 FR 41562, 41578 to 41580 (July 14, 2011) and 76
FR 69928, 69947 and 69952 (November 9, 2011). This disapproval action
became effective on January 9, 2012 and started a sanctions clock for
imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after January 9, 2012 and
highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. As such, offset
sanctions will apply on July 9, 2013 and highway sanctions will apply
on January 9, 2014, unless EPA determines that the deficiency forming
the basis of the disapproval has been corrected.
    On November 14, 2011, the State of California submitted the ``South
Coast Air Quality Management District Proposed Contingency Measures for
the 2007 PM2.5 SIP'' (dated October 2011) as a SIP revision
to correct the deficiency identified in our partial disapproval action.
On April 13, 2013, the SCAQMD submitted a technical clarification to
the SIP revision, including updated emissions data for the year 2012.
In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we have
proposed to approve this submittal because we believe it corrects the
deficiency identified in our November 9, 2011 partial disapproval
action. Based on today's proposed approval, we are taking this final
rulemaking action, effective on publication, to defer the imposition of
offset and highway sanctions triggered by our November 9, 2011 partial
disapproval.
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this
deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our
assessment described in this final determination and the proposed full
approval of the SIP revision, we intend to take subsequent

final action to impose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d). If no
comments are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions
and sanction clocks will be permanently terminated on the effective
date of a final rule approval.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to defer CAA section
179 sanctions associated with our partial disapproval of the South
Coast PM2.5 SIP based on our concurrent proposal to approve
the State's SIP revision as correcting the deficiency that initiated
sanctions.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has
corrected the deficiency identified in EPA's partial disapproval
action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as
possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for
comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However,
by this action EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on
EPA's determination after the effective date, and EPA will consider any
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
    EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and, through
its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that
the State has corrected the deficiency that started the sanctions
clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially impose
sanctions when the State has most likely done all it can to correct the
deficiency that triggered the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be
impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding
that the State has corrected the deficiency prior to the rulemaking
approving the State's submittal. Therefore, EPA believes that it is
necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to defer
sanctions while EPA completes its rulemaking process on the
approvability of the State's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the
effective date of this action, EPA is invoking the good cause exception
to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this
notice is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action defers federal sanctions and imposes no additional
requirements.
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action.
    The administrator certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    This rule does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule does not have tribal implications 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action does not have federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply to
this rule because it imposes no standards.
    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to Congress and the Comptroller
General. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the
issuing agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure
thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the
rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has made such a good cause
finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective
date of June 24, 2013. EPA will submit a report containing this rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 23, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 12, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-14916 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61293-61294]
[DOCID:fr30oc07-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29375; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-06]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; State College, PA

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  This action amends Class E Airspace at State College, PA to
provide adequate airspace for a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP)
that has been developed to serve the Centre Community Hospital (PS57),
State College, PA.

DATES:  Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before November 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES:  Send comments on this rule to Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-
2007-29375; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-06, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
 You may review the public docket containing the

rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the
Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room C210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404)
305-5581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of
intent to submit and adverse or negative comment is received within the
comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date
specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will
publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse
or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date.
If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative
comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a
document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the
Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published
with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified
under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before
the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be
amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Commenters
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2007-29375; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-06.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace at State College, PA establishing the
additionally required controlled airspace to support the new RNAV
helicopter Point in Space (PinS) approach at Centre Community Hospital.
A new Copter RNAV (GPS) 234 Point in Space (PinS) Special IAP serving
the Centre Community Hospital has been developed. Controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required to
encompass the IAP and for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations,
therefore,

the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part
71 to establish additional Class E5 Airspace at State College, PA. The
current E5 airspace at State College does not provide adequate airspace
for this new approach. This action provides the required controlled
airspace. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA
Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Centre Community Hospital,
State College, PA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 State College, PA [Amended]

University Park Airport, State College, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]50'56'' N., long 77[deg]50'58'' W.)

PENUE NDB

    (Lat. 40[deg]54'37'' N., long. 77[deg]44'30'' W.)
Centre Community Hospital, State College, PA

Point in Space Coordinates

    (Lat. 40[deg]49'14'' N., long 77[deg]49'44'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of University Park Airport and within 3.1
miles each side of the University Park Airport ILS Runway 24
localizer course extending from the PENUE NDB to 9.2 miles northeast
of the NDB; and that airspace within a 6-mile radius of the point in
space (lat. 40[deg]49'14'' N., long. 77[deg]49'44'' W.) serving the
Centre Community Hospital.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 5, 2007.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 07-5325 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M