Unknown. Final rule

10,740 words·~49 min read·/register/2012/06/20/2012-15008·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2012-06-20.xml --- 77 119 Wednesday, June 20, 2012 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37047-37049 2012-14980 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Processed Raspberry Promotion, Research and Information Program, 36983-36984 2012-15023 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Forest Service See National Agricultural Statistics Service See Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2012-14976 36982-36983 2012-14977 2012-15046 Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37050-37051 2012-15105 2012-15106 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Security Zones: Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, CA, 36955-36958 2012-14973 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Baby Bouncers and Walker-Jumpers, 37000-37001 2012-14950 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37001 2012-15146 Defense Department Defense Department RULES Pilot Program for Temporary Exchange of Information Technology Personnel, 36916-36919 2012-15007 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37001-37002 2012-15006 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 2012-15041 37002-37007 2012-15042 2012-15043 2012-15044 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders:

Muzaffer Aslan, MD, 37068-37070 2012-15061 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Race to the Top: Early Learning Challenge; Phase 2; Proposed Requirements, 36958-36964 2012-14954 NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; Burn Model Systems Centers, 37012-37016 2012-15101 Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, 37007-37011 2012-15089 Upward Bound Math and Science Program, 37016-37022 2012-15012 Final Priorities:

Disability Rehabilitation Research Project; Burn Model Systems Centers, 37025-37031 2012-15051 Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, 37022-37025 2012-15091 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of Self-Employment Training Demonstration, 37070-37072 2012-14921 Filing Location for Foreign Labor Certification Program Temporary Program Applications: Change of Address, 37072-37073 2012-15013 Energy Department Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances:

Sedaxane, 36919-36924 2012-14957 PROPOSED RULES Approvals and Promulgations of Implementation Plans: Texas; Revisions to New Source Review State Implementation Plan, etc., 36964-36980 2012-15049 NOTICES Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program: Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for CF and I Steel, L.P. dba EVRAZ Rocky Mountain Steel, 37038 2012-15016 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Illinois, 37038-37039 2012-15048 Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Delaware, 37039 2012-15019 Delegations of Authority to Maryland:

Implementation and Enforcement of Additional or Revised National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, etc., 37039-37041 2012-15018 Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37041 2012-14997 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Establishments of Restricted Areas: R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F;

Devils Lake, ND, 36907-36914 2012-15008 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 36948-36950 2012-15063 Dassault Aviation Airplanes; Withdrawal, 36950-36951 2012-15097 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37041-37043 2012-14946 2012-14947 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 2012-15194 37043 2012-15232 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications:

Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC, 37031-37032 2012-14984 Capacity Deliverability Across Midwest: Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., PJM Interconnection, LLC Seam; Establishing Comment Period, 37032 2012-14985 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Questar Pipeline Co., JL 47 Loop Project, 37032-37034 2012-15034 Exempt Wholesale Generator Status, 37034 2012-14986 Filings: Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC, 37034 2012-15037 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorization:

O.L.S. Energy-Agnews, Inc., 37035 2012-14982 SunPower Corp., Systems, 37035 2012-14981 License Transfer Applications: Goose River Hydro, Inc., and Independence Hydro, LLC, 37035-37036 2012-15038 Requests Under Blanket Authorization: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 37036 2012-15036 Revised Restricted Service Lists for Programmatic Agreements: Alabama Power Co., 37036-37037 2012-14983 Terminations of Licenses by Implied Surrenders: Crown Hydro LLC, 37037 2012-15039 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37091-37092 2012-15084 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Interstate 515, Clark County, NV; Withdrawal, 37092 2012-14994 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 37043-37044 2012-15060 Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licenses: Applicants, 37044-37045 2012-15062 Reissuances, 37045 2012-15053 Revocations, 37044 2012-15050 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Transportation of Household Goods in Interstate Commerce;

Consumer Protection Regulations, 36932-36935 2012-14999 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37092-37093 2012-15085 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Application for Approval of Copper-clad Iron Shot as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting, 36980-36981 2012-14956 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Gastroenterology-Urology Devices:

Reclassification of Implanted Blood Access Devices, 36951-36955 2012-15024 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Experimental Study, Disease Information in Branded Promotional Material, 37051-37055 2012-14989 Secure Supply Chain Pilot Program, 37055-37058 2012-14990 Draft Guidance for Industry and Staff; Availability: Implanted Blood Access Devices for Hemodialysis; Class II Special Controls Guidance, 37058-37059 2012-15025 Draft Guidances for Industry:

Active Controls in Studies to Demonstrate Effectiveness of New Animal Drug for Use in Companion Animals, 37059 2012-14988 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES International Standard-Setting Activities, 36984-36994 2012-15002 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Baxter Healthcare of Puerto Rico, Foreign-Trade Zone 7, Mayaguez, PR, 36997 2012-15088 Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC (Subzone 61A), Foreign-Trade Zone 61, San Juan, PR, 36997-36998 2012-15093 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements;

Availability, etc.: Questa Ranger District, Carson National Forest; Taos County, NM; Taos Ski Valleys 2010 Master Development Plan - Phase 1 Projects; Additional Filings; Correction, 36994-36995 2012-14995 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health PROPOSED RULES Race to the Top: Early Learning Challenge; Phase 2;

Proposed Requirements, 36958-36964 2012-14954 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37045-37047 2012-15028 2012-15032 2012-15033 Healthcare Research and Quality Agency See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Transportation Security Administration See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:

Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Asset Protection Technical Assistance Program Survey, 37060-37061 2012-15014 Meetings: DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, 37061-37062 2012-13969 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Labor Standards Training/Event Evaluation, 37064 2012-15109 Consolidated Delegations of Authority: Office of Housing - Federal Housing Administration, 37234-37237 2012-15064 Delegations of Authority:

Office of Housing-Federal Housing Administration to Other HUD Offices, 37240-37241 2012-15069 Office of Housing-Federal Housing Administration; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance and Budget, 37237-37240 2012-15067 Office of Housing-Federal Housing Administration; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Risk Management and Regulatory Affairs, 37250-37252 2012-15075 Office of Housing-Federal Housing Administration; Multifamily Housing Programs, 37241-37248 2012-15071 Office of Housing-Federal Housing Administration;

Office of Healthcare Programs, 37248-37250 2012-15073 Office of Housing-Federal Housing Administration; Single Family Housing Programs, 37252-37258 2012-15077 Orders of Succession: Office of Housing, 37237 2012-15065 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Invasive Species Advisory Committee; Extension of Submission Deadline, 37064-37065 2012-15047 Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Permission for Election to Treat Liquidation of Target, Followed by Recontribution to New Target, as Cross-Chain Reorganization, 36914-36916 2012-14979 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37098-37101 2012-14844 2012-14978 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Bankruptcy Compliance Project Committee, 37101 2012-14960 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Face-to-Face Service Methods Project Committee, 37101 2012-14963 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 37102-37103 2012-14969 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Refund Processing Communications Project Committee, 37101-37102 2012-14961 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Return Processing Delays Project Committee, 37103 2012-14970 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business / Self-Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project Committee, 37102 2012-14967 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 37103 2012-14971 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Burden Reduction Project Committee, 37102 2012-14965 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Project Committee, 37102 2012-14968 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations:

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, Modules, and Components Thereof, 37067-37068 2012-15005 Justice Department Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration RULES National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 37106-37232 2012-12427 Labor Department Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council, 37066 2012-15111 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36995-36996 2012-14958 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 37073-37074 2012-15087 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Alternate Odometer Requirements: Petition for Approval, 36935-36946 2012-14773 NOTICES Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines, 37093-37098 2012-15011 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings:

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee, 37060 2012-14938 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Snapper-Grouper Fishery of South Atlantic; 2012 Commercial Accountability Measures and Closures: South Atlantic Lesser Amberjack, Almaco Jack, and Banded Rudderfish Complex, 36946-36947 2012-15052 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:

Mandatory Shrimp Vessel and Gear Characterization Survey, 36998 2012-14987 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Office of Coast Survey Hydrographic Survey Projects, 36998-36999 2012-14998 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 16160, 36999-37000 2012-15104 Marine Mammals; File No. 814-1899, 37000 2012-15103 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 37066-37067 2012-14975 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Amendment Requests:

Alan J. Blotcky Reactor Facility, 37074-37077 2012-15009 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Meetings: Hispanic Council on Federal Employment, 37077 2012-14952 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 37077-37078 2012-14959 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Parcel Select and Parcel Return Service Negotiated Service, 37078 2012-14936 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances:

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day (Proc. 8838), 36901-36902 2012-15170 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Government Agencies and Employees: Broadband Infrastructure Deployment; Acceleration Efforts (EO 13616), 36903-36906 2012-15183 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: South Mississippi Electric Coop.; Plant Ratcliff, Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle, 36996-36997 2012-15035 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37078-37079 2012-14948 Applications: Versus Capital Multi-Manager Real Estate Income Fund LLC and Versus Capital Advisors, 37079-37082 2012-15059 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: International Securities Exchange, LLC, 37082-37086 2012-15054 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 37086-37089 2012-15055 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Revocations of Licenses of Small Business Investment Companies, 37089 2012-14837 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Meetings:

Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel, 37089-37091 2012-15015 State Department State Department NOTICES Determinations Under the Foreign Assistance Act: Assistance to Antigua and Barbuda, 37091 2012-15108 Statistical Reporting Service See National Agricultural Statistics Service Transportation Department Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Transportation Security Administration RULES Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise:

Program Improvements, 36924-36932 2012-14893 Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service LEO Reimbursement Request, 37062 2012-15026 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Designation of Attorney in Fact, 37063-37064 2012-15058 Information Relating to Beneficiary of Private Bill, 37063 2012-14991 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Justice Department, 37106-37232 2012-12427 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 2012-15077 2012-15065 37234-37258 2012-15064 2012-15069 2012-15067 2012-15075 2012-15071 2012-15073 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 77 119 Wednesday, June 20, 2012 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2011-0117; Airspace Docket No. 09-AGL-31] Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F;

Devils Lake, ND AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action establishes restricted area airspace within the Devils Lake Military Operations Area (MOA), overlying Camp Grafton Range, in the vicinity of Devils Lake, ND. The new restricted areas permit realistic training in modern tactics to be conducted at Camp Grafton Range while ensuring the safe and efficient use of the National Airspace System

(NAS)in the Devils Lake, ND, area. Unlike restricted areas which are designated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73, MOAs are not regulatory airspace. However, since the restricted areas overlap the Devils Lake East MOA, the FAA is including a description of the Devils Lake East MOA change in this rule. The MOA change described herein will be published in the National Flight Data Digest (NFDD). DATES: *Effective Dates:* Effective date 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:

(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On November 28, 2011, the FAA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to establish Restricted Areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F in the vicinity of Devils Lake, ND (76 FR 72869). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. In response to public request, the FAA extended the comment period for 30 additional days (77 FR 1656; January 11, 2012). There were 43 comments received in response to the NPRM with 42 opposing various aspects of the proposal and one comment supporting the proposal as published. All comments received were considered before making a determination on this final rule. The following is a discussion of the substantive comments received and the agency's response. Discussion of Comments One commenter contended that the 500 feet above ground level

(AGL)base for R-5402 would impact low level, aerial operations such as crop dusters, wildlife and agricultural surveys, and emergency medical access. The FAA recognizes that when active, R-5402 would restrict nonparticipating aircraft from operating within its boundaries. To mitigate impacts to the aviation activities described above, the United States Air Force

(USAF)has agreed to implement scheduling coordination measures to de-conflict laser operations and accommodate access by local farming, ranching, survey, and medical aviation interests when they need to fly in or through R-5402, when it is active. Another commenter noted that VFR traffic would have to circumnavigate active restricted airspace resulting in increased time and distances flown. The FAA acknowledges restricted area airspace segregates nonparticipating aircraft from hazardous activities occurring inside the restricted area and that, on occasion, nonparticipating aircraft affected by the restricted area will have to deviate from preferred routings to remain clear. The lateral boundaries and altitudes of the restricted area complex were defined to minimize impacts to nonparticipant aircraft, yet still support the military in accomplishing its training mission. The subdivided configuration of the restricted area complex, the altitude stratifications, and the entire restricted area complex designated as “joint use,” affords nonparticipant aircraft access to the portions of restricted area airspace not in use by the military to the greatest extent possible. One commenter expressed concern that segregating airspace for new types of aircraft sets a dangerous precedent. The FAA agrees and maintains its policy to establish restricted area airspace when determined necessary to confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The FAA considers UAS operations to be non-hazardous. However, the FAA recognizes that some UAS platforms have the ability to employ hazardous ordnance or sensors. Since the MQ-1 Predator [UAS] laser is non-eye safe and will be used during training sorties flown by the military, its use constitutes a hazardous activity that must be confined within restricted area airspace to protect nonparticipating aircraft. Two commenters suggested that Special Use Airspace

(SUA)should be ceded back to civil control when not in use. The FAA proposed that the restricted areas be designated as “joint use” airspace, specifically to afford the highest level of access to NAS users and limit this access only when necessary. This rule provides that when the restricted areas are not needed by the using agency, the airspace will be returned to the controlling agency, Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center, for access by other NAS users. Another commenter recommended that the proposed restricted area airspace be developed for concurrent use. The FAA considered the commenters use of “concurrent use” to mean “sharing the same airspace, at the same time, between participating and nonparticipating aircraft.” As noted previously, restricted areas are established to confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft; such as dropping bombs, firing guns/missiles/rockets, or lasing with a non-eye safe laser. Concurrent use, as described above, would not be prudent in such an environment as it constitutes an unacceptable risk to nonparticipating aircraft. Twenty-two commenters stated that the proposed restricted areas should have been developed in conjunction with the North Dakota Airspace Integration Team (NDAIT), a group formed to find solutions to UAS integration into the NAS, as well as coordinate UAS activities state-wide. To clarify, the focus of this proposed action is consideration of establishing restricted areas to support hazardous military training activities, not UAS integration into the NAS. The FAA notes that the NDAIT was not established until after the USAF airspace proposal was submitted to the FAA and many of the NDAIT members took the opportunity to submit comments on the proposal. One commenter stated that the proposed airspace should be environmentally assessed for the broad array of military aircraft that would be expected to employ in conjunction with UAS. The FAA agrees and has confirmed that the Environmental Impact Statement for the bed down of the MQ-1 Predator at Grand Forks Air Force Base

(AFB)addresses other aircraft that would likely train with the UAS in the proposed restricted area airspace complex. Another commenter stated that the proposed restricted area airspace would eventually be activated almost full time as is the current Temporary Flight Restriction

(TFR)over Grand Forks AFB. The TFR referred to by the commenter is contained in the Special Security Instruction authorized under 14 CFR 99.7 for Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)UAS operations conducted from Grand Forks AFB. Although the TFR is active while the CBP UAS is flying, it allows airspace access by non-participant aircraft using procedural separation rules. The restricted areas proposed by this action are being established with specific times of designation, to support the hazardous non-eye safe laser training conducted by the USAF. The times are described by “core hours” and also may be activated by NOTAM to allow for training periods outside the core hours, i.e. at night. Twenty commenters argued that the proposal is contrary to FAA policy, in that it is designed for the sole purpose of separating non-hazardous types of VFR aircraft. The FAA has established this restricted area airspace to confine the MQ-1 Predator employment of a non-eye safe targeting laser, which is hazardous to nonparticipating pilots. This laser training for UAS pilots must be contained in restricted areas to confine the hazardous activity, as well as protect non-participating aircraft flying in the vicinity of the restricted areas. Even though the Predator operations in the restricted areas will normally occur in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), the UAS will be on an IFR flight plan in accordance with U.S. Air Force requirements. Two commenters requested that the FAA establish a formal, annual review process and public report on the use and impacts of any designated airspace associated with UAS activity in Grand Forks, ND. The request to establish a formal annual review process with public reporting on use and impacts falls outside the scope of this proposed action. However, the FAA has a Restricted Area Annual Utilization reporting program already established to assist the FAA in managing special use airspace areas established throughout the NAS. These annual utilization reports provide objective information regarding the types of activities being conducted, as well as the times scheduled, activated, and actual use, which the FAA uses to assess the appropriate use of the restricted areas. Nineteen commenters recommended that proposed restricted airspace have a “sunset” date. The restricted areas are established to confine hazardous non-eye safe laser training, which will continue as long as the Predator UAS are operating from Grand Forks AFB. Technology developments to integrate UAS into the NAS with manned aircraft, as well as military Tactics, Techniques and Procedures

(TTP)maturation may provide an opportunity to reconfigure the restricted area airspace at a future date, but the requirement for restricted area airspace will exist as long as the non-eye safe laser training is conducted. One commenter recommended a requirement for equipping the UAS with forward viewing sensors that would enable the UAS to comply with 14 CFR part 91 see-and-avoid rules. While the FAA is working with the industry to develop see-and-avoid solutions for the safe and eventual seamless integration of UAS into the NAS, this suggestion is outside the scope of this action. One commenter asked that the proposal be tabled until the FAA publishes its final Order/Advisory Circular regarding UAS operations in the NAS. The Order/Advisory Circular address the integration of UAS in the NAS, which is separate from the action of establishing restricted area airspace to confine hazardous non-eye safe laser training activities. This action is necessary to support the military's training requirement beginning this summer. The FAA is completing this airspace action separate from its UAS NAS integration guidance development efforts. Several commenters recommended that instead of creating new SUA for these activities that the USAF use existing restricted areas or the airspace subject to flight restrictions under § 99.7 SSI and used by the Customs & Border Protection Agency

(CBP)at Grand Forks AFB. The FAA advocates the use of existing SUA and requires proponents to examine all reasonable alternatives, prior to considering the need to establish new SUA. In this case, the USAF conducted an extensive analysis of alternatives and considered criteria including proximity to Grand Forks AFB, existence of a suitable air-to-ground range for laser targeting, and air traffic density both en route and at the training complex. The Beaver MOA in north central Minnesota is approximately three times as far as the proposed airspace, has much heavier air traffic density, and has no air-to-ground gunnery range. The Tiger MOAs in north central North Dakota are the same distance as the proposed airspace, have favorable air traffic density, but have no air-to-ground gunnery range. The airspace in the vicinity of the existing CBP § 99.7 SSI flight restriction would be closer, but has much higher traffic density and complexity, and has no air-to-ground range. Additionally, there were no useable restricted areas within reasonable distance of Grand Forks AFB for consideration. The FAA believes the USAF considered and analyzed the alternatives to this action and that establishing new SUA is the only reasonable option. One commenter suggested that the restricted area complex be moved north of Devils Lake. The FAA notes that the USAF studied an alternative of establishing restricted areas in the Tiger North and Tiger South MOAs, located north of Devils Lake, ND. While proximity to Grand Forks AFB and the air traffic density compared favorably to the proposed airspace area, the lack of an air-to-ground gunnery range suitable for hazardous laser training made this option operationally unfeasible. The FAA accepted the USAF's consideration and analysis of this alternative and proposed establishing the restricted areas set forth in this action. One commenter recommended that the proposed airspace be moved to another state as it would impact flying training in the vicinity of Grand Forks. This airspace proposal resulted from Congress' Base Realignment and Closure Commission of 2005 decision to retain Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota for an emerging UAS mission. As addressed previously, Beaver MOA in north central Minnesota is the nearest SUA outside of North Dakota. It was approximately three times the distance from Grand Forks AFB, has much higher air traffic density airspace, and has no air-to-ground gunnery range for hazardous laser training. The FAA recognizes the proposed restricted areas could impact civil flight training, largely conducted by the University of North Dakota and east of the proposed complex. Additionally, nearly all civil flight training activity that currently occurs in the vicinity of the restricted areas would take place below the proposed R-5403 footprint. Whereas the floor of R-5402 goes down to 500 feet above ground level (AGL), its cylinder footprint was reduced to a 7 NM radius around R-5401 and the Camp Grafton Range to mitigate impacts to these civil operations. This airspace action provides a reasonable balance between military training requirements and accommodation of non-participant flight training. Three commenters stated that the vast size of the restricted area complex is not necessary. The restricted areas being established by this action provide the minimum vertical and lateral tactical maneuvering airspace required for UAS operators to accomplish target acquisition prior to attack, and then contain the non-eye safe laser during firing. The restricted area complex was configured to confine two UAS operating on independent mission profiles at the same time, while minimizing airspace impacts to non-participating aircraft. As the UAS training flight transitions from one phase of the mission profiles to another, unused segments will be deactivated and returned to the NAS consistent with the FAA's Joint Use Airspace policy. The subdivided and stratified configuration of the restricted area complex enables the USAF to only activate the restricted areas needed for their training sorties while leaving the rest of the complex inactive and available for NAS users. The FAA believes the segmentation and stratification of the complex will enhance civil access to those parts of the complex not activated for USAF training requirements. Actual procedures for restricted area activation and deactivation will be defined in a Letter of Procedure between the using and controlling agencies. Two commenters asked if the USAF could find a less cluttered area with more suitable weather for MQ-1 Predator operations. The FAA acknowledges that weather challenges will exist for the MQ-1 Predator operations at Grand Forks AFB. The decision to base Predator UAS at Grand Forks AFB, however, was mandated by Congress. The restricted areas proposed by this action were situated and proposed in the only location that met the USAF's operational requirements of proximity to launch/recovery base, low air traffic density, and availability of an existing air-to-ground gunnery range suitable for the hazardous non-eye safe laser training activities. One commenter contended that Alert Areas are more appropriate for UAS training activity. Alert Areas are designated to inform nonparticipating pilots of areas that contain a high volume of pilot training operations, or an unusual type of aeronautical activity, that they might not otherwise expect to encounter. However, only those activities that do not pose a hazard to other aircraft may be conducted in an Alert Area. Since employment of the non-eye safe laser carried by the MQ-1 Predator UAS is an activity hazardous to non-participants, an Alert Area is not an appropriate airspace solution. Two commenters stated that the Air Force is proposing restricted areas as a means to mitigate for lack of see-and-avoid capability for UAS operations. They noted, correctly, that the Air Force could use ground-based or airborne assets to provide see-and-avoid compliance instead. FAA policy dictates that restricted areas are established to confine activities considered hazardous to non-participating aircraft. As mentioned previously, the focus of this action is establishing restricted areas to support hazardous military training activities, not UAS integration into the NAS. As such, the FAA does not support establishing restricted areas as a solution to overcome UAS inability to comply with 14 CFR Part 91 see-and-avoid requirements. The FAA is establishing the restricted areas addressed in this action to confine the hazardous non-eye safe laser training activities conducted by the USAF. One commenter stated that new restricted airspace should be offset by reallocation of unused SUA elsewhere in the NAS. The proposed restricted areas fall almost entirely within the existing Devils Lake East MOA. When activated, the new restricted areas will be, in effect, replacing existing SUA. Although the regulatory and non-regulatory process for establishing SUA is not directly linked to the restricted area and MOA annual utilization reporting process, the FAA does review restricted area and MOA utilization annually. If candidate SUA areas are identified, the FAA works with the military service to appropriately return that airspace to the NAS. Seventeen commenters stated that Predator pilots can get the same training through simulation. The FAA cannot determine for the USAF the value of simulated UAS operator training over actual flying activities. The USAF is heavily investing in Live, Virtual, and Constructive

(LVC)training options. As the commenters infer, the migration to a virtual training environment would be expected to reduce the demand for activating R-5402 and R-5403A-F. However, actual employment of the non-eye safe laser will still be required for both training proficiency and equipment validation. This action balances the training airspace requirements identified by the USAF as it matures its UAS capabilities with the airspace access requirements of other NAS users. Twenty commenters addressed the increased collision hazard due to air traffic compression at lower altitudes and around the periphery of the proposed complex. The FAA recognizes that compression could occur when the restricted areas are active; however, the actual impact will be minimal. The FAA produced traffic counts for the 5 busiest summer days and 5 busiest winter days of 2011 during the proposed times of designation (0700-2200L) from 8,000 feet MSL to 14,000 feet MSL. Totals for all IFR and known VFR aircraft ranged between 4 and 22 aircraft over the 17-hour span. Volumes such as this are easily managed by standard ATC procedures. To enhance non-radar service in the far western part of the proposed complex, the FAA is considering a separate rulemaking action to modify V-170 so that it will remain clear of R-5402 to the west. On average, four aircraft file V-170 over a 24-hour day. Lastly, the FAA is nearing completion of a project to add three terminal radar feeds, from Bismarck, Fargo, and Minot AFB, covering the restricted area airspace area into Minneapolis ARTCC. These feeds will improve low altitude radar surveillance and enhance flight safety around the proposed restricted areas. One commenter argued that the proposed airspace should be limited to daylight hours only. While daytime flying is usually safer in a visual see-and-avoid environment; when it comes to the military training for combat operations, darkness provides a significant tactical advantage and UAS must be capable of operating both day and night. While the USAF has a valid and recurring requirement to train during hours of darkness, the USAF was able to accept a 2-hour reduction in the published times of designation core hours from “0700-2200 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance,” to “0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance.” Another commenter sought details on the UAS lost link plan. Although the lost link plan is not within the scope of this action, the FAA does require detailed procedures for UAS lost link situations for all UAS operations. These procedures will be similar to those in place today for UAS operations across the NAS. The servicing ATC facility and UAS operators closely coordinate lost link procedures and will incorporate them into the implementing Letters of Procedure

(LOP)for the restricted areas established in this rule. Two commenters commented that the proposed restricted area complex stratification and segmentation was confusing and would lead to SUA airspace incursions. The FAA promotes stratifications and segmentation of large SUA complexes to maximize the safety and efficiency of the NAS and to enable more joint use opportunities to access the same airspace by non-participating aircraft. Sub-dividing the complex permits activation of a small percentage of the overall complex at any one time while still providing for a diverse set of training profiles during UAS sorties, which is especially well-suited for long duration UAS training missions. Additionally, enhanced joint use access eases compression of air traffic in the local area; thus, increasing flight safety. Nineteen commenters noted that UAS will not be able to see-and-avoid large flocks of birds using migratory flyways, which could create a hazard for personnel on the ground. Both Grand Forks AFB and the University of North Dakota flight school, located at the Grand Forks International Airport, have conducted extensive research into bird strike potential and prevention. Their research found that more than 90 percent of bird strikes occur below 3,500 feet AGL and that there are predictable windows for migratory bird activity, which are adjusted year-to-year based on historical and forecast weather patterns. Also, bird strikes are nearly twice as likely to occur at night compared to the day. The USAF has long standing bird strike avoidance procedures specifically customized for Grand Forks AFB, which will be optimized for UAS operations. Other mitigations include having the bases of the restricted airspace well above most bird activity, conducting most training during daylight hours, and adjusting UAS operations during seasonal migratory activity. These mitigations conform to both civil and military standard bird strike avoidance measures that are in place across the NAS. Eighteen commenters contended that persons and property under the proposed airspace would not be protected from the non-eye safe laser training. The USAF conducted a laser safety study in 2009 for the Camp Grafton Air-to-Ground Range. This range, where the laser targets will be placed, lies within the existing R-5401. The study examined laser and aircraft characteristics, topography, target composition, and employment parameters, and determined that the proposed airspace would adequately protect persons and property outside the footprint of R-5401. Personnel working at the range will use proper protective gear should they need to access the target areas during laser employment periods. The FAA has reviewed and accepts the USAF's laser safety study. The restricted areas established by this action are designed to allow laser employment without hazard to persons and property in the vicinity of R-5401. Two commenters stated that it is dangerous to mix UAS with visual flight rules

(VFR)air traffic. UAS are permitted to fly outside restricted area airspace in the NAS today and in the vicinity of VFR aircraft, under FAA approved Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). Specific to this action, UAS operations will be occurring inside restricted area airspace that is established to confine the hazardous non-eye safe laser training activities; thus, segregated from nonparticipating aircraft. One commenter said that VFR pilot violations will increase and those less informed will pose a safety hazard. The FAA interpreted the commenters use “violations” to mean SUA airspace incursions. VFR pilots must conduct thorough pre-flight planning and are encouraged to seek airborne updates from ATC on the status of SUA. The FAA finds that the restricted areas established by this action pose no more risk of incursion or safety hazard than other restricted areas that exist in the NAS. Two commenters observed that the NPRM failed to identify how UAS would transit from Grand Forks AFB to the proposed restricted areas. The FAA considers UAS transit and climb activities to be non-hazardous; therefore, establishing new restricted areas for transit and climb purposes is inappropriate. While UAS transit and climb activities are non-hazardous, they are presently atypical. Therefore, specifics on transit and climb ground tracks, corridor altitudes and widths, and activation procedures will be accomplished procedurally and consistent with existing COA mitigation alternatives available today. The establishment of restricted areas airspace is focused on the hazardous non-eye safe laser training activities. Twenty four commenters noted that the proposed restricted areas would block V-170 & V-55 and impact V-169 & V-561. The FAA acknowledges that the proposed restricted area complex will have a minimal impact on three of the four Victor airways mentioned, depending on the restricted areas activated. The airway analysis began with V-170, which runs between Devils Lake, ND, and Jamestown, ND, with a Minimum En route Altitude

(MEA)of 3,500 feet MSL along the effected segment of the airway. An average of four aircraft per day filed for V-170. R-5402, when active, impacts V-170 from 1200 feet AGL to 10,000 feet MSL. The FAA is considering a separate rulemaking action to modify V-170 by creating a slight “dogleg” to the west, which would allow unimpeded use of V-170 below 8,000 feet MSL regardless of the status of R-5402. Impacts to V-170 above 8,000 feet MSL are dependent upon which restricted areas are active. V-55 runs between Grand Forks, ND, and Bismarck, ND, with an MEA of 8,000 feet MSL along the affected segment of the airway. An average of 7 aircraft per day filed for V-55. Activation of R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, or R-5403C would have no impact on V-55. The FAA raised the floor of R-5403D to 10,000 feet MSL and reduced the blocks for R-5403D and R-5403E to 2,000 feet each to allow ATC more flexibility to climb/descend IFR traffic on V-55. The FAA is also considering establishing a Global Positioning Satellite MEA along the affected segment of V-55 to allow properly equipped non-participating aircraft to fly the V-55 ground track, but at a lower altitude. V-561 runs between Grand Forks, ND, and Jamestown, ND, with an MEA of 4,000 feet MSL along this segment of the airway. An average of two aircraft per day filed for V-561. When activated, the southeast corner of R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F encroach upon V-561 from 10,000 feet MSL-11,999 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL-13,999 feet MSL, or 14,000 feet MSL-17,999 feet MSL, respectively. V-169 runs between Devils Lake, ND, and Bismarck, ND, with an MEA of 3,500 feet MSL along this segment. The nearest point of any restricted area is 5 nautical miles

(NM)from the centerline of V-169. Since Victor airways are 4 NM wide; the restricted areas do not encumber the use of V-169. The FAA acknowledges potential impacts to users on Victor airways V-55, V-170, and V-651 by the restricted areas established in this action. However, based on the 13 total average daily flights filing for V-55, V-170, and V-651 in the same airspace as the proposed restricted area complex (V-169 is not affected by the proposed airspace), the impacts of the restricted areas on the three affected airways is considered minimal. These aircraft have air traffic control procedural alternatives available to include vectoring, altitude change, or re-routing as appropriate. Nineteen commenters found that transcontinental and local area flights would be forced to deviate around restricted areas, increasing cost and flight time. The FAA understands that when the restricted areas are active, non-participation aircraft will have to accomplish course deviations or altitude changes for avoidance, which can increase distances flown and costs incurred. For this action, the FAA and USAF worked together to define the minimum airspace volume necessary to meet USAF training mission requirements and maximize airspace access to other users of the NAS. Reducing the overall size and internally segmenting and stratifying the complex have reduced course deviation distances and altitude changes required by non-participants to avoid active restricted areas. Additionally, the USAF as agreed to temporarily release active restricted airspace back to ZMP for non-participant transit during non-routine/contingency events (i.e. due to weather, icing, aircraft malfunction, etc.). Air traffic in this part of the NAS is relatively light and the level of impact associated with establishing the restricted areas in this action is considered minimal when balanced against valid military training requirements. Twenty-four comments were received stating that four hours prior notice is insufficient lead time for activation by NOTAM, with most recommending that the prior notification time be increased to six hours. The FAA recognizes that many aircraft today have flight durations long enough that flight planning before takeoff may occur outside of the 4-hour window. Restricted areas provide protected airspace for hazardous operations with no option to transit when active, so changes in airspace status after flight planning would have an impact on routing or altitude. These impacts could be reduced by increasing the NOTAM notification time; therefore the proposed time of designation for R-5402 and R-5403A-F is amended to “0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM.” One commenter stated that the SUA should be limited to published times of designation or times that can be obtained through an Automated Flight Service Station

(AFSS)or ZMP. The times of designation for the restricted areas conforms to FAA policy and provides military users the operational flexibility to adjust for unpredictable, yet expected events, such as poor weather conditions or aircraft maintenance delays. By establishing the restricted areas with a “By NOTAM” provision for activations, the AFSS will receive scheduled activation times at least 6 hours in advance and can provide activation information when requested. Additionally, ZMP can provide the most current restricted areas status to airborne aircraft, workload permitting, as an additional service to any requesting IFR or VFR aircraft. Nineteen commenters contended that local and transient pilots would avoid the restricted areas regardless of the activation status. The FAA understands that some pilots may opt to avoid the vicinity of this proposed airspace complex; however, pilots have multiple ways to obtain SUA schedule information during preflight planning and while airborne to aid their situational awareness. Daily SUA schedules will be available on the *sua.faa.gov* Web site, NOTAMs will be issued at least 6 hours prior to activating the restricted areas, and AFSS will brief SUA NOTAMS upon request. Airborne updates will also be available through ZMP or AFSS. Lastly, the USAF will provide a toll-free phone number for inclusion on aeronautical charts that will enable NAS users to contact the scheduling agency for SUA status information; similar to what is in place for the Adirondack SUA complex in New York. Two commenters requested that the FAA chart an ATC frequency for updates on the restricted areas. The FAA has frequencies listed on both the L-14 IFR Enroute Low Altitude Chart and the Twin Cities Sectional Aeronautical Chart already. Upon review, the VHF frequency listed on the IFR Enroute Low Altitude Chart near where R-5402 and R-5403A-F restricted areas will be established was found to be different than the frequency listed on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart listing of SUA for the existing R-5401 (which R-5402 and R-5403A-F will overlay). The FAA is taking action to correct the discrepancy so that matching frequencies are charted. Seventeen commenters stated that the NOTAM system is generally inadequate to inform users of SUA status, and the number of components to this restricted airspace would lead to intricate and confusing NOTAMs. The restricted area complex is comprised of 7 individual areas and structured to minimize complexity and maximize nonparticipant access when not required for military use during certain phases of a training mission. The overall complex configuration, with seven sub areas, is a reasonable balance between efficiency, complexity, and military requirements. The NOTAM system is designed to disseminate many types of aeronautical information, including restricted area status when activation is “By NOTAM” or outside published times of designation. Because of the “By NOTAM” provision in the legal description times of designation, activation NOTAMs for R-5402 and R-5403A-F will be included in verbal briefings from AFSS, upon pilot request. The Rule The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 to expand the vertical and lateral limits of restricted area airspace over the Camp Grafton Range to contain hazardous non-eye safe laser training operations being conducted by the emerging UAS mission at Grand Forks Air Force Base (AFB); thus, transforming the range into a viable non-eye safe laser training location. Camp Grafton Range is currently surrounded by R-5401; however, the lateral boundaries and altitude are insufficient to contain the laser training mission profiles and tactics flown in combat operations today. This action supplements R-5401 by establishing additional restricted areas, R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F, to provide the vertical and lateral tactical maneuver airspace needed for UAS target acquisition prior to attack, and to contain the non-eye safe laser during laser target designation training operations from medium to high altitudes. The restricted area R-5402 is defined by a 7 nautical mile

(NM)radius around the center of R-5401, with the northern boundary adjusted to lie along the 47°45′00″ N latitude. The restricted area altitude is upward from 500 feet above ground level to, but not including 10,000 feet MSL. This new restricted area provides a pathway for the non-eye safe laser beam to transit from R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C (described below) through the existing R-5401 and onto Camp Grafton Range. The restricted areas R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C share the same lateral boundaries, overlying R-5402 and layered in ascending order. The northern boundary of these R-5403 areas, as described in the regulatory text, share the same northern boundary as R-5402, the 47°45′00″ N latitude. The western boundary lies approximately 14 NM west of R-5402 along the 99°15′00″ W longitude and the eastern boundary lies approximately 7 NM east of R-5402 along the 98°15′00″ W longitude. Finally, the southern boundary is established to remain north of the protected airspace for V-55. The restricted area altitudes, in ascending order, are defined upward from 8,000 feet MSL to, but not including 10,000 feet MSL for R-5403A; upward from 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including 14,000 feet MSL for R-5403B; and upward from 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including Flight Level

(FL)180 for R-5403C. The additional lateral and vertical dimensions provided by these restricted areas, in conjunction with R-5401, R-5402, R-5403D, R-5403E, R-5403F, establish the maneuvering airspace needed for UAS aircraft to practice the tactical maneuvering and standoff target acquisition training requirements necessary for the combat tactics and mission profiles flown today and to contain the hazardous non-eye safe laser, when employed, completely within restricted airspace. The areas R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F also share the same lateral boundaries, adjacent to and southeast of R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C, and are also layered in ascending order. The northern boundary of these R-5403 areas, as described in the regulatory text, shares the southern boundary of R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C. The western boundary point reaches to the 99°15′00″ W longitude and the eastern boundary lies along the 98°15′00″ W longitude. Finally, the southern boundary is established to lie along the 47°15′00″ N latitude. The restricted area altitudes, in ascending order, are defined upward from 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including 12,000 feet MSL for R-5403D; upward from 12,000 feet MSL to, but not including 14,000 feet MSL for R-5403E; and upward from 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including Flight Level

(FL)180 for R-5403F. The additional lateral and vertical dimensions provided by these restricted areas, in conjunction with R-5401, R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, and the Camp Grafton Range, establish the maneuvering airspace, standoff target acquisition, and hazardous non-eye safe laser employment training completely within restricted airspace, as noted above. During the NPRM public comment period, it was realized that the proposal section of the NPRM preamble described the southern boundary for the proposed R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F to lay along the 47°30′00″ N latitude, in error. However, the regulatory text in the NPRM correctly described the southern boundary for these proposed restricted areas to lie along the 47°15′00″ N latitude. This action confirms the southern boundary for R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F is along the 47°15′00″ N latitude. Restricted areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F are all designated as “joint-use” airspace. This means that, during periods when any of the restricted airspace areas are not needed by the using agency for its designated purposes, the airspace will be returned to the controlling agency for access by other NAS users. The Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center is the controlling agency for the restricted areas. Lastly, to prevent confusion and conflict by establishing the new restricted areas in an existing MOA, and having both SUA areas active in the same volume of airspace at the same time, the Devils Lake East MOA legal description is being amended in the NFDD. The Devils Lake East MOA amendment will exclude R-5401, R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F when the restricted areas are active. The intent is to exclude the restricted areas in Devils Lake East MOA individually as they are activated. This MOA amendment will prevent airspace conflict with overlapping special use airspace areas. Regulatory Notices and Analyses Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows: As presented in the discussion of comments section of this preamble, commenters stated that there could be the following potential adverse economic impacts from implementing this final rule: the rule will block V-170 and V-55 and limit the use of V-169 and V-561; VFR and local area flights will be forced to deviate around restricted areas, increasing cost and flight time; and the 500 feet AGL floor for R-5402 will affect low level aerial operations such as crop dusters, wildlife and agricultural surveys, and emergency medical access. With respect to the first potential impact, as discussed in the preamble, the FAA acknowledges that users of Victor airways V-55, V-170, and V-561 could be potentially affected when the restricted areas established in this action are active; however users of V-169 will not be affected at all. Users of V-170 from 1200 feet AGL to 8,000 feet MSL would be affected only when R-5402 is active. The FAA's has determined that there is an average of 4 flights per day between Devils Lake, ND, and Jamestown, ND. Of these flights, 90 percent are general aviation flights (many of them University of North Dakota training flights) and 10 percent are military or air taxi flights. The potential effect on users of V-170 could be offset by several actions. One action would be to modify V-170 by creating a slight “dogleg” further west of R-5402 to allow unimpeded use of V-170 below 8,000 feet MSL regardless of the status of R-5402. The FAA estimates that this “dogleg” would add about 5 miles to the length of the flight between Devils Lake and Jamestown. Another action would be for air traffic control to either vector the aircraft west of R-5402 or climb the aircraft to 8,000 feet MSL to avoid R-5402. V-170 above 8,000 feet MSL, V-55, and V-561 can still be used by the public, even during military training operations, if the nonparticipant aircraft flies at a different altitude than the altitudes the military is using at that time. The FAA has determined that these adjustments will result in minimal cost to the affected operators. With respect to the second potential impact, with the exception of R-5402, the public will not be required to deviate around the restricted areas, even during military operations, as long as the nonparticipating aircraft flies at an altitude above or below the altitudes that the military is using at that time. The FAA has determined that these altitude adjustments will have a minimal effect on cost. With respect to the third potential impact, the USAF has agreed to implement scheduling coordination measures for R-5402 that will accommodate access by local farming, ranching, survey, and medical aviation interests. Further, when any of the restricted areas are not needed by the USAF for its intended purposes, the airspace will be returned to the controlling agency, Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center, for access by other NAS users; providing considerable time for these interests to perform most of their aviation activities in a timely manner. The FAA has determined that these potential disruptions in public aviation will have a minimal effect on cost. The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)

(RFA)establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. The FAA received two comments from small business owners and a comment from the North Dakota Agricultural Aviation Association (NDAAA), representing agricultural aviation operators. The comments from the business owners expressed concerns about the availability of airspace and that they would be diverted from their normal flight plans, thereby increasing their costs. As previously stated in this preamble, however, these routes will not be closed even during military operations—they can be flown by nonparticipant aircraft so long as those aircraft are not at the altitudes being used by the military. The NDAAA comment that agricultural aircraft are frequently ferried at altitudes greater than 500 feet applies only to those aircraft in R-5402—not in any of the other areas. As previously noted, the agreement with the USAF and the fact that there are no restrictions in R-5402 when it is not being used by the military will minimize the potential economic impact to agricultural aviation operations in this airspace. While the FAA believes that one air taxi operator, a few small business operators, and a few agricultural aviation operators constitute a substantial number of small entities, based on the previous analysis, the FAA determined that the final rule will have a minimal economic impact. Therefore, as the acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on international trade. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply. Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and other applicable law, the USAF prepared and published *The BRAC Beddown and Flight Operations of Remotely Piloted Aircraft at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota”* dated July 2010 (hereinafter the FEIS) that analyzed the potential for environmental impacts associated with the proposed creation of Restricted Areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F. In September 2010, the USAF issued a Record of Decision based on the results of the FEIS. In accordance with applicable CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.6) and the Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU)between FAA and Department of Defense

(DOD)dated October 2005, the FAA was a cooperating agency on the FEIS. The FAA has conducted an independent review of the FEIS and found that it is an adequate statement. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3(a) and (c), the FAA is adopting the portions of the FEIS for this action that support the establishment of the above named restricted areas. The FAA has documented its partial adoption in a separate document entitled * “Partial Adoption of Final EIS and Record of Decision for the Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5402 and 5403 * *.”* This final rule, which establishes restricted areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F, will not result in significant environmental impacts. A copy of the FAA Partial Adoption of FEIS and ROD has been placed in the public docket for this rulemaking and is incorporated by reference. FAA Authority The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes restricted area airspace at Camp Grafton Range, near Devils Lake, ND, to enhance safety and accommodate essential military training. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas. The Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 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. § 73.54 [Amended] 2. Section 73.54 is amended as follows: R-5402 Devils Lake, ND [New] Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°45′00″ N., long. 98°47′19″ W.; to lat. 47°45′00″ N., long. 98°31′25″ W.; then clockwise on a 7 NM arc centered on lat. 47°40′31″ N., long. 98°39′22″ W.; to the point of beginning, excluding the airspace within R-5401 when active, and R-5403A when active. Designated altitudes. 500 feet AGL to, but not including, 10,000 feet MSL. Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND. R-5403A Devils Lake, ND [New] Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°45′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°45′00″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°35′39″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. Designated altitudes. 8,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 10,000 feet MSL. Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND. R-5403B Devils Lake, ND [New] Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°45′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°45′00″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°35′39″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 14,000 feet MSL. Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND. R-5403C Devils Lake, ND [New] Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°45′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°45′00″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°35′39″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL 180. Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND. R-5403D Devils Lake, ND [New] Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°35′39″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 12,000 feet MSL. Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND. R-5403E Devils Lake, ND [New] Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°35′39″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. Designated altitudes. 12,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 14,000 feet MSL. Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND. R-5403F Devils Lake, ND [New] Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°35′39″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 98°15′00″ W.; to lat. 47°15′00″ N., long. 99°15′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL 180. Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 2012. Paul Gallant, Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group. [FR Doc. 2012-15008 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents

CFR