Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5007 

order) under 5 U.S.C. 7123(d), the 

General Counsel may make application 

for appropriate temporary relief 

(including a restraining order) in the 

district court of the United States within 

which the unfair labor practice is 

alleged to have occurred or in which the 

party sought to be enjoined resides or 

transacts business. Temporary relief 

may be sought if it is just and proper 

and the record establishes probable 

cause that an unfair labor practice is 

being committed. Temporary relief shall 

not be sought if it would interfere with 

the ability of the agency to carry out its 

essential functions. 

(d) Actions subsequent to obtaining 

appropriate temporary relief. The 

General Counsel shall inform the 

district court which granted temporary 

relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7123(d) 

whenever an Administrative Law Judge 

recommends dismissal of the complaint, 

in whole or in part. 

§ 2423.11 Determination not to issue 

complaint; review of action by the Regional 

Director. 

(a) Opportunity to withdraw a charge. 

If the Regional Director determines that 

the charge has not been timely filed, 

that the charge fails to state an unfair 

labor practice, or for other appropriate 

reasons, the Regional Director may 

request the Charging Party to withdraw 

the charge. 

(b) Dismissal letter. If the Charging 

Party does not withdraw the charge 

within a reasonable period of time, the 

Regional Director will, on behalf of the 

General Counsel, dismiss the charge and 

provide the parties with a written 

statement of the reasons for not issuing 

a complaint. 

(c) Appeal of a dismissal letter. The 

Charging Party may obtain review of the 

Regional Director’s decision to dismiss 

a charge by filing an appeal with the 

General Counsel within 25 days after 

service of the Regional Director’s 

decision. A Charging Party shall serve a 

copy of the appeal on the Regional 

Director. The General Counsel shall 

serve notice on the Charged Party that 

an appeal has been filed. 

(d) Extension of time. The Charging 

Party may file a request, in writing, for 

an extension of time to file an appeal, 

which shall be received by the General 

Counsel not later than 5 days before the 

date the appeal is due. A Charging Party 

shall serve a copy of the request for an 

extension of time on the Regional 

Director. 

(e) Grounds for granting an appeal. 

The General Counsel may grant an 

appeal when the appeal establishes at 

least one of the following grounds: 

(1) The Regional Director’s decision 

did not consider material facts that 

would have resulted in issuance of a 

complaint; 

(2) The Regional Director’s decision is 

based on a finding of a material fact that 

is clearly erroneous; 

(3) The Regional Director’s decision is 

based on an incorrect statement or 

application of the applicable rule of law; 

(4) There is no Authority precedent 

on the legal issue in the case; or 

(5) The manner in which the Region 

conducted the investigation has resulted 

in prejudicial error. 

(f) General Counsel action. The 

General Counsel may deny the appeal of 

the Regional Director’s dismissal of the 

charge, or may grant the appeal and 

remand the case to the Regional Director 

to take further action. The General 

Counsel’s decision on the appeal states 

the grounds listed in paragraph (e) of 

this section for denying or granting the 

appeal, and is served on all the parties. 

Absent a timely motion for 

reconsideration, the decision of the 

General Counsel is final. 

(g) Reconsideration. After the General 

Counsel issues a final decision, the 

Charging Party may move for 

reconsideration of the final decision if it 

can establish extraordinary 

circumstances in its moving papers. The 

motion shall be filed within 10 days 

after the date on which the General 

Counsel’s final decision is postmarked. 

A motion for reconsideration shall state 

with particularity the extraordinary 

circumstances claimed and shall be 

supported by appropriate citations. The 

decision of the General Counsel on a 

motion for reconsideration is final. 

§ 2423.12 Settlement of unfair labor 

practice charges after a Regional Director 

determination to issue a complaint but prior 

to issuance of a complaint. 

(a) Bilateral informal settlement 

agreement. Prior to issuing a complaint, 

the Regional Director may afford the 

Charging Party and the Charged Party a 

reasonable period of time to enter into 

an informal settlement agreement to be 

approved by the Regional Director. 

When a Charged Party complies with 

the terms of an informal settlement 

agreement approved by the Regional 

Director, no further action is taken in 

the case. If the Charged Party fails to 

perform its obligations under the 

approved informal settlement 

agreement, the Regional Director may 

institute further proceedings. 

(b) Unilateral informal settlement 

agreement. If the Charging Party elects 

not to become a party to a bilateral 

settlement agreement, which the 

Regional Director concludes effectuates 

the policies of the Federal Service 

Labor-Management Relations Statute, 

the Regional Director may choose to 

approve a unilateral settlement between 

the Regional Director and the Charged 

Party. The Regional Director, on behalf 

of the General Counsel, shall issue a 

letter stating the grounds for approving 

the settlement agreement and declining 

to issue a complaint. The Charging Party 

may obtain review of the Regional 

Director’s action by filing an appeal 

with the General Counsel in accordance 

with § 2423.11(c) and (d). The General 

Counsel may grant an appeal when the 

Charging Party has shown that the 

Regional Director’s approval of a 

unilateral settlement agreement does not 

effectuate the purposes and policies of 

the Federal Service Labor-Management 

Relations Statute. The General Counsel 

shall take action on the appeal as set 

forth in § 2423.11(b), (c), (d), (f), and (g). 

§§ 2423.13–2423.19 [Reserved] 

Dated: January 26, 2010. 

Julia Akins Clark, 

General Counsel, Federal Labor Relations 

Authority. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2047 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6727–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0710; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–ASO–16] 

Establishment of Class D and E 

Airspace; Panama City, FL 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

establish Class D and E airspace at 

Panama City, FL, to accommodate new 

Area Navigation (RNAV) Global 

Positioning System (GPS) Standard 

Instrument Approach Procedures 

(SIAPs) for the new Northwest FloridaPanama City International Airport. This 

action would enhance the safety and 

management of instrument Flight Rules 

(IFR) operations at the airport. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule 

to: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800– 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
5008 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You 

must identify the Docket Number FAA– 

2009–0710; Airspace Docket No. 09– 

ASO–16, at the beginning of your 

comments. You may also submit and 

review received 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 210, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melinda Giddens, Airspace Specialist, 

Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization, 

Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 

Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; 

telephone (404) 305–5610. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 

comment on this rule by submitting 

such written data, views, or arguments, 

as they may desire. Comments that 

provide the factual basis supporting the 

views and suggestions presented are 

particularly helpful in developing 

reasoned regulatory decisions on the 

proposal. Comments are specifically 

invited on the overall regulatory, 

aeronautical, economic, environmental, 

and energy-related aspects of the 

proposal. Communications should 

identify both docket numbers and be 

submitted in triplicate to the address 

listed above. Those wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2009–0710; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–ASO–16.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. All communications 

received before the specified closing 

date for comments will be considered 

before taking action on the proposed 

rule. The proposal contained in this 

notice may be changed in light of the 

comments received. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded from and 

comments submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Recently 

published rulemaking documents can 

also be accessed through the FAA’s web 

page at http://www.faa.gov/ 

airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/ 

publications/airspace_amendments/. 

Additionally, any person may obtain a 

copy of this notice by submitting a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Office of Air 

Traffic Airspace Management, ATA– 

400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–8783. Communications must 

identify both docket numbers for this 

notice. Persons interested in being 

placed on a mailing list for future 

NPRM’s should contact the FAA’s 

Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, 

to request a copy of Advisory Circular 

No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is considering an 

amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish 

Class D and E airspace at Panama City, 

FL. Class D airspace extending upward 

from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL 

within a 4.7-mile radius of the 

Northwest Florida-Panama City 

International Airport, and Class E 

airspace extending from 700 feet above 

the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of 

the airport is necessary for the safety 

and management of SIAPs at the new 

Northwest Florida-Panama City 

International Airport. There will be 

separate rulemaking action removing 

the existing airspace surrounding the 

old Panama City-Bay County Airport 

prior to closing the airport. 

Designations for Class D and E 

airspace areas are published in 

Paragraph 5000 and 6005, respectively, 

of FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August 

27, 2009, and effective September 15, 

2009, which is incorporated by 

reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D 

and E airspace designations listed in 

this document would be published 

subsequently in the Order. 

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. 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 

proposed rule, when promulgated, 

would 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 proposed 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 proposed regulation is 

within the scope of that authority as it 

would establish Class D and E airspace 

at Panama City, FL. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for Part 71 

will continue 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. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

signed August 27, 2009, and effective 

September 15, 2009, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL D Panama City, FL [New] 

Northwest Florida-Panama City International 

Airport, FL 

(Lat. 30°21′28′′ N., long. 85°47′56′′ W.) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5009 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface up to and including 2,500 feet MSL 

within a 4.7-mile radius of the Northwest 

Florida-Panama City International Airport. 

This Class D airspace area is effective during 

specific dates and times established in 

advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective 

date and time will thereafter be continuously 

published in the Airport/Facility Directory. 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending 

Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the 

Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E5 Panama City, FL [New] 

Northwest Florida-Panama City International 

Airport, FL 

(Lat. 30°21′28′′ N., long. 85°47′56′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface of the Earth within a 

7.2-mile radius of the Northwest FloridaPanama City International Airport. 

* * * * * 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 

21, 2010. 

Michael Vermuth, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2005 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Parts 57 and 75 

RIN 1219–AB65 

Proximity Detection Systems for 

Underground Mines 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) is requesting 

information regarding whether the use 

of proximity detection systems would 

reduce the risk of accidents where 

mobile equipment pins, crushes, or 

strikes miners in underground mines 

and, if so, how. MSHA is also requesting 

information to determine if the Agency 

should consider regulatory action and, if 

so, what type of regulatory action would 

be appropriate. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

midnight Eastern Standard Time on 

April 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

identified with ‘‘RIN 1219–AB65’’ and 

may be sent to MSHA by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Electronic mail: zzMSHAComments@dol.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 1219– 

AB65’’ in the subject line of the message. 

• Facsimile: 202–693–9441. Include 

‘‘RIN 1219–AB65’’ in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in 

at the receptionist’s desk on the 21st 

floor. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

MSHA, at silvey.patricia@dol.gov 

(e-mail), 202–693–9440 (voice), or 202– 

693–9441 (Facsimile). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Availability of Information 

MSHA will post all comments on the 

Internet without change, including any 

personal information provided. Access 

comments electronically at http:// 

www.msha.gov under the ‘‘Rules and 

Regs’’ link. Review comments in person 

at the Office of Standards, Regulations, 

and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in 

at the receptionist’s desk on the 21st 

floor. 

MSHA maintains a list that enables 

subscribers to receive e-mail notification 

when the Agency publishes rulemaking 

documents in the Federal Register. To 

subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/ 

subscriptions/subscribe.aspx. 

Information on MSHA-approved 

proximity detection systems is available 

on the Internet at http://www.msha.gov/ 

Accident_Prevention/NewTechnologies/ 

ProximityDectection/ 

ProximitydetectionSingleSource.asp. 

II. Background 

A. Review of Proximity Detection 

Technology and Proximity Detection 

Systems 

Proximity detection is a technology 

that uses electronic sensors to detect 

motion or the location of one object 

relative to another object. Although the 

technology is not new, application of 

this technology to mobile equipment in 

underground mines is new. 

MSHA conducted tests in 

collaboration with proximity detection 

manufacturers and mine operators at 

mine sites from 2002 to 2006. The 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) has 

conducted research on proximity 

detection technologies independently at 

various times since the mid 1990s to 

present day. The technologies include 

radio, ultrasonic, radar, infrared, and 

electromagnetic field based systems. 

After reviewing the different types of 

systems, MSHA determined that the 

electromagnetic field based system 

offers the greatest potential for reducing 

pinning, crushing, and striking hazards 

to: (1) Remote control continuous 

mining machine (RCCM) operators and 

(2) other miners working near RCCMs. 

An electromagnetic field based system 

consists of a combination of 

electromagnetic field generators and 

field detecting devices. One example of 

an electromagnetic field based system 

uses electromagnetic field generators 

that are installed on an RCCM and 

electronic sensing devices that are worn 

by persons operating the RCCM or 

working near the RCCM. Another 

electromagnetic field based system uses 

field generators worn by the operator of 

the RCCM and persons working near the 

RCCM and the sensing devices are 

installed on the RCCM. These 

electromagnetic field based systems can 

be programmed to provide warnings to 

affected miners or stop the RCCM, or 

both, when the RCCM operator or other 

miners get within the predefined danger 

zone of the RCCM. 

In 1998, MSHA studied accidents 

involving RCCMs and determined that a 

proximity detection system has the 

potential to prevent accidents that occur 

when an RCCM operator or another 

miner gets within the predefined danger 

zone of the RCCM. In 2002, in response 

to an increase in accidents involving 

RCCMs, MSHA initiated a project in 

cooperation with a proximity detection 

system manufacturer and an 

underground coal mine operator. The 

Agency’s goal was to have the 

manufacturer develop and test an 

electromagnetic field based system on 

an RCCM in an underground coal mine. 

In 2004, MSHA assisted a second 

manufacturer with the development of 

an electromagnetic field based system. 

The field tests of these two systems 

focused on addressing hazards to the 

RCCM operator, but the systems could 

be adapted to address hazards to other 

miners working near the RCCM. 

MSHA approved both of these 

systems in 2006 and a third system in 

2009 under existing regulations in 30 

CFR part 18. These approvals ensure 

that the systems will not introduce an 

ignition hazard when operated in 

potentially explosive atmospheres. The 

three approved systems are: 

• The Frederick Mining Controls, 

LLC, HazardAvertTM System, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS