This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

46797 

Vol. 73, No. 156 

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25250; Amdt. No. 

91–302] 

RIN 2120–AI63 

Special Awareness Training for the 

Washington, DC Metropolitan Area 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is requiring ‘‘special 

awareness’’ training for any pilot who 

flies under visual flight rules (VFR) 

within a 60-nautical-mile (NM) radius of 

the Washington, DC VHF omnidirectional range/distance measuring 

equipment (DCA VOR/DME). This 

training has been developed and 

provided by the FAA on its 

www.FAASafety.gov Web site and 

focuses primarily on training pilots on 

the procedures for flying in and around 

the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area 

Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and 

the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area 

Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ). The rule 

will reduce the number of unauthorized 

flights into the airspace of the 

Washington, DC Metropolitan Area 

ADIZ and FRZ through education of the 

pilot community. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 9, 2009. Affected parties, 

however, do not have to comply with 

the information collection requirement 

in § 91.161 until the FAA publishes in 

the Federal Register the control number 

assigned by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for this information 

collection requirement. Publication of 

the control number notifies the public 

that OMB has approved this information 

collection requirement under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule contact: John D. Lynch, 

Certification and General Aviation 

Operations Branch, AFS–810, General 

Aviation and Commercial Division, 

Flight Standards Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3844. 

For legal questions concerning this 

final rule contact: Michael Chase, Air 

Traffic and Airman/Airport Certification 

Law Branch, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Administrator of the FAA has 

broad authority to regulate the safe and 

efficient use of the navigable airspace 

(49 U.S.C. 40103). The Administrator 

also is authorized to issue air traffic 

rules and regulations to govern the flight 

of aircraft, the navigation, protection 

and identification of aircraft for the 

protection of persons and property on 

the ground, and for the efficient use of 

navigable airspace. Additionally, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3) the 

Administrator has the authority, in 

consultation with the Secretary of 

Defense, to ‘‘establish security 

provisions that will encourage and 

allow maximum use of the navigable 

airspace by civil aircraft consistent with 

national security.’’ 

List of Abbreviations and Terms Frequently 

Used in This Document 

ADIZ—Air Defense Identification Zone 

AOPA—Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association 

ATC—Air Traffic Control 

DCA VOR/DME—Washington, DC very high 

frequency omni-directional range/distance 

measuring equipment 

FDC—Flight Data Center 

FRZ—Flight Restricted Zone 

HAI—Helicopter Association International 

IFR—Instrument flight rules 

NATA—National Air Transportation 

Association 

NM—Nautical mile 

NOTAM—Notice to Airmen 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

VFR—Visual flight rules 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Establishment of the Washington, DC 

ADIZ 

B. Summary of the Special Awareness 

Training NPRM 

C. Other Washington, DC ADIZ-Related 

Rulemaking Activity 

II. Discussion of Comments 

A. Application of the Training Program 

1. Applicability to Pilots 

2. Size of the ‘‘Training Zone’’ 

3. Frequency of Training 

B. Washington, DC ADIZ Operating 

Requirements 

C. Air Traffic Control 

D. The FAA’s Enforcement Policy 

E. Charting the Training Area 

F. Educational Outreach 

G. Impact on General Aviation Pilots 

H. Certificate of Training Completion 

I. The FAA’s Web site 

J. Adopting a Training Requirement Based 

on a NOTAM 

III. Differences Between the NPRM and the 

Final Rule 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

V. International Compatibility 

VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded 

Mandates Assessment 

VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

VIII. Environmental Analysis 

IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

X. Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Background 

A. Establishment of the Washington, DC 

ADIZ 

In February 2003, the FAA, in 

consultation with the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), the 

Department of Defense (DOD), and other 

Federal agencies, issued Notices to 

Airmen (NOTAMs) implementing an 

outer Air Defense Identification Zone 

(ADIZ) and an inner Flight Restricted 

Zone (FRZ) around the Washington, DC 

Metropolitan Area. At that time, the 

ADIZ closely resembled the Washington 

tri-area Class B airspace area. The FRZ, 

requiring more stringent access 

procedures than the ADIZ, was 

established within an approximately 15- 

nautical-mile (NM) radius from the 

Washington, DC very high frequency 

omni-directional range/distance 

measuring equipment (DCA VOR/DME). 

The NOTAMs also established radio 

communication, transponder, and flight 

plan requirements for pilots to follow. 

Some types of operations, such as U.S. 

military, law enforcement, and 

approved aeromedical flights, are 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
46798 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

excluded from the requirements. The 

ADIZ and the FRZ, along with other 

security measures, enable the law 

enforcement and security communities 

to identify pilots and their intentions 

and to track aircraft operating in the 

vicinity of the nation’s capital. 

On August 30, 2007, the airspace 

restrictions in the Washington, DC area 

were modified by Flight Data Center 

(FDC) NOTAMs 07/0206 and 07/0211. 

While the specifications for the FRZ 

remain essentially the same (except that 

the western boundary has been moved 

slightly eastward), the radius of the 

ADIZ has been reduced to a 30-NM 

radius from the DCA VOR/DME, thereby 

reducing the number of airports affected 

by the airspace restrictions and making 

more navigable airspace available to 

pilots conducting operations in the area. 

In addition, the requirements to obtain 

appropriate authorization, establish 

two-way communication with Air 

Traffic Control (ATC), be equipped with 

an operating transponder with altitudereporting capability, and file a flight 

plan remain the same. However, the 

revised NOTAM also added a 

‘‘maneuvering area’’ for Leesburg 

Airport, and imposed an airspeed 

restriction of 180 knots or less (if 

capable) within the ADIZ/FRZ. For VFR 

aircraft operations conducted between 

30 and 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME, 

aircraft are restricted to an indicated 

airspeed of 230 knots or less, unless 

otherwise authorized. 

Since the creation of the ADIZ, there 

have been over 3,000 incursions into the 

Washington, DC ADIZ. Between 

February 12, 2003 and April 30, 2008, 

there were approximately 3,200 

reported observed incursions into the 

Washington, DC ADIZ. A few of these 

flights came so close to the Capitol and 

the White House that they caused mass 

evacuations of these buildings and other 

Federal office buildings. In other 

incidents, civilian aircraft have been 

intercepted by U.S. Coast Guard 

helicopters and U.S. Air Force fighter 

airplanes. Although all of the incursions 

were eventually determined to be noncriminal in nature, each incursion 

places an unnecessary burden on 

Federal, state, and local law 

enforcement resources. For instance, 

when an unauthorized aircraft 

penetrates restricted airspace, the FAA’s 

air traffic controllers must divert 

necessary resources to monitor the 

aircraft’s flight, alert security operations, 

and communicate information about the 

aircraft to appropriate military and law 

enforcement agencies. Several branches 

of the Federal government, the military, 

and local law enforcement are forced to 

respond to the situation and to execute 

a potentially hazardous intercept under 

circumstances that typically prove not 

to have been a threat to our national 

security. 

B. Summary of the Special Awareness 

Training NPRM 

On July 5, 2006, the FAA issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled, ‘‘Special Awareness Training 

for the Washington, DC Metropolitan 

Area’’ (71 FR 38118). The FAA 

proposed that pilots flying VFR within 

a radius of 100 nautical miles (NM) of 

the DCA VOR/DME complete free 

online Special Awareness Training for 

operating in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area and other Temporary 

Flight Restriction (TFR) areas. Pilots 

would be required to complete the 

training one time. Upon completion of 

the online training, a pilot would 

download a copy of his or her certificate 

of training completion. A copy of the 

certificate would have to be presented 

upon request of an authorized 

representative of the FAA, an 

authorized representative of National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

any Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement officer, or an authorized 

representative of the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA). 

The comment period for the NPRM 

closed on September 5, 2006. The FAA 

is issuing this rule essentially as 

proposed, except that the proposed 

requirement that training must be 

completed by pilots flying within a 100- 

NM radius from the DCA VOR/DME has 

been modified in the final rule to 

require training for pilots flying within 

a 60-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME. 

The FAA will place a note on the 

Washington Sectional, BaltimoreWashington Terminal Area Sectional, 

Baltimore-Washington Helicopter Route 

Sectional, and the CG–21 World 

Aeronautical Chart about the training 

requirement for the Washington, DC 

ADIZ and FRZ airspace. 

In addition, the heading of § 91.161 

has been modified to better describe the 

content of the section, and a paragraph 

entitled ‘‘Special Awareness Training’’

has been added to describe the training 

required by § 91.161 and where it is 

located. 

C. Other Washington, DC ADIZ-Related 

Rulemaking Activity 

On August 4, 2005, the FAA issued an 

NPRM entitled, ‘‘Washington, DC 

Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules 

Area’’ (70 FR 45250) that proposed to 

codify current flight restrictions for 

certain aircraft operations in the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area. That 

rule remains in development, and this 

final rule is not directly related to the 

issues addressed in that rulemaking 

action. 

II. Discussion of Comments 

The FAA received 65 comments on 

the NPRM, primarily from individuals 

but also from the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA), the National 

Air Transportation Association (NATA), 

and Helicopter Association 

International (HAI). The FAA also 

received comments related to the 

August 4, 2005, ‘‘Washington, DC 

Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules 

Area’’ proposed rule. Those comments 

are outside the scope of this rulemaking 

and will not be addressed here. 

Commenters generally expressed 

opposition to the NPRM. While many 

agreed that training could be helpful, 

they did not believe that the FAA’s 

training program would be effective. A 

discussion of the comments follows. 

A. Application of the Training Program 

Commenters had varying opinions on 

the FAA’s proposed audience, 

curriculum, and testing criteria for the 

Special Awareness Training. After 

considering all these comments, the 

FAA has decided not to change the 

proposed requirements for the training 

program, its target audience or its 

frequency. The agency believes that due 

to the potential impact of an incursion 

on the pilot, Federal resources, and the 

public, mandatory training is necessary, 

even if the incursion was inadvertent. 

The FAA believes the training 

curriculum is well designed and focuses 

on how to fly safely in the Washington, 

DC ADIZ and FRZ. The training is 

designed to cover the correct procedures 

for operating near or inside the DC 

ADIZ. While at least one commenter 

would have the training also address 

normal, abnormal, and emergency 

procedures resulting from transponder 

failure, navigation errors, dyslexia, or 

accidentally hitting the wrong button on 

annunciator or radio panel, the FAA did 

not feel this was appropriate, as there 

are other training programs that cover 

this material. 

1. Applicability to Pilots 

With regard to whom the training 

requirement applied, a few commenters 

believed that training should be 

required of all pilots, not just those who 

anticipated flying within 100 NM of the 

DCA VOR/DME under IFR. In fact, one 

commenter felt that completion of 

training should be a prerequisite for any 

pilot’s license renewal. Others, on the 

other hand, asked that the agency carve 

out exclusions for certain types of pilots 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 46799 

and operations or the training should be 

voluntary. 

The FAA believes it is important that 

any pilot, whether acting as pilot in 

command or second in command, 

receive Special Awareness Training if 

the pilot has any intention of operating 

an aircraft under VFR within 60 NM of 

the DCA VOR/DME. Thus, § 91.161 

applies when conducting operations 

under 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, 129, 

133, 135 and 137. And, regardless of the 

type of pilot certificate held (e.g., sport, 

recreational, student, private, 

commercial, airline transport pilot 

(ATP), or foreign), or where the flight 

originated (e.g., Virginia, California, or 

even Canada), a pilot is subject to this 

Special Awareness Training 

requirement as a prerequisite for flying 

under VFR within a 60-NM radius of the 

DCA VOR/DME. 

One commenter argued for a sport 

pilot exclusion because these pilots do 

not routinely fly in controlled airspace. 

He also suggested that pilots of gliders, 

balloons, powered parachutes, and 

weight-shift-control aircraft be excluded 

because these aircraft are limited in 

range. The FAA acknowledges that 

holders of sport pilot certificates are not 

permitted to operate in Class A, B, C, or 

D airspace, at an airport located in Class 

B, C, or D airspace, or at an airport 

having an operational control tower. 

However, sport pilots who hold the 

necessary endorsements and whose 

aircraft are appropriately equipped may 

perform those operations and hence 

could make unauthorized flights into 

the Washington, DC airspace. Therefore 

the FAA has determined that it is 

necessary to require this training of 

sport pilots as part of the agency’s 

efforts to educate the pilot community 

and reduce the number of unauthorized 

flights into the Washington, DC 

airspace. In addition, the FAA does not 

agree that an aircraft’s range limitations 

would necessarily prevent a pilot from 

making an unauthorized flight into the 

Washington, DC airspace. The FAA 

maintains that no matter what the pilot 

certificate or aircraft, if a pilot is flying 

under VFR in the identified area, then 

training should be required. 

AOPA recommended exclusion for 

pilots who have been vetted for 

operations into the FRZ since they 

already receive special security training. 

The FAA is familiar with the security 

training requirements and finds 

significant differences in its curriculum 

versus the training required by § 91.161. 

The Special Awareness Training focuses 

on safe operating practices in the 

Washington, DC airspace while the 

security training for operating in the 

FRZ focuses on pre-flight and flight 

procedure requirements for all flightrestricted zones. 

2. Size of the ‘‘Training Zone’’

As proposed, the FAA would have 

required pilots flying VFR within a 100- 

NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME to 

certify that they had completed the 

training program that is the subject of 

this rule. 

Several commenters believed that 

requiring the larger training zone had 

the effect of extending the Washington, 

DC ADIZ and its operating requirements 

to a 100-NM radius of the DCA VOR/ 

DME. Since publication of the NPRM, 

the size of the DC ADIZ itself has been 

reduced to 30 NM from the DCA VOR/ 

DME by the August 30, 2007 NOTAM. 

Also by NOTAM (FDC NOTAM 7/0204), 

the FAA has implemented an additional 

speed restriction for VFR operations 

between 30 NM and 60 NM of the DCA 

VOR/DME. The FAA has therefore 

decided to reduce the size of the 

‘‘training zone’’ to 60 NM from the DCA 

VOR/DME, which matches the 60-NM 

speed restriction area. While this action 

maintains a buffer zone, i.e., an area for 

which the training requirements apply 

that is larger than the DC ADIZ itself, 

establishing a training area larger than 

the Washington, DC ADIZ does not 

imply that the procedures for operating 

in the Washington, DC ADIZ have been 

expanded to cover the larger airspace. 

In addition, many commenters 

asserted that requiring training within a 

100-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME 

was too prescriptive. As discussed 

above, the FAA has reduced the training 

zone to a 60-NM radius from the DCA 

VOR/DME under this final rule. The 

FAA has decided that a 30-NM distance 

from the outer edges of the Washington, 

DC ADIZ is a sufficient buffer of 

airspace. The agency has determined 

that the majority of pilots who 

inadvertently entered the Washington, 

DC ADIZ airspace departed from an 

airport within a 60-NM radius of the 

DCA VOR/DME. Therefore, reducing the 

training zone any further would not be 

prudent. 

3. Frequency of Training 

A minority of commenters expressed 

concern that the training will not be 

effective because it is a one-time 

obligation rather than a recurrent 

requirement. There was fear that a pilot 

would take the course, file his or her 

training certificate away, and forget the 

training unless the pilot flies in the 

Washington, DC area routinely. In 

contrast, one commenter urged the FAA 

to ensure that pilots who took the 

Special Awareness Training prior to the 

issuance of this final rule get credit for 

complying with the requirement. 

A pilot who completed the online 

training prior to issuance of this final 

rule is not required to retake the 

training. The FAA is only requiring that 

the training obligation be met once. 

However, a pilot has an on-going 

responsibility to be competent and 

proficient. The FAA encourages airmen 

to review periodically the Special 

Awareness Training program. 

Furthermore, the procedures for 

operating in the Washington, DC ADIZ 

and FRZ are issued by NOTAM, and a 

pilot is already required to be familiar 

with any NOTAM issued in the pilot’s 

flying area prior to any departure. (See 

§ 91.103.) The training also will be 

emphasized during flight reviews and 

the FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency 

awards program (WINGS Program). 

B. Washington, DC ADIZ Operating 

Requirements 

Many commenters, including AOPA 

and HAI, said the operating procedures 

in the Washington, DC ADIZ are overly 

complex or are obscure. These 

commenters believed that if the FAA 

would fix the difficulties of operating in 

the ADIZ, rather than require training, 

incursions would decrease. 

The FAA recognizes there have been 

difficulties with operating in the ADIZ. 

Since the issuance of the Special 

Awareness Training NPRM, the 

procedures for operating in the 

Washington, DC ADIZ have been 

modified through an amended NOTAM. 

The FAA believes that operating in the 

area is now less difficult. Regardless, the 

FAA believes that pilot education 

remains critical. 

The FAA is issuing this final rule to 

establish Special Awareness Training 

for pilots who fly within the restricted 

and special-use airspace of the 

Washington, DC Metropolitan Area 

under visual flight rules. The training, 

which is currently available online on 

the http://www.FAASafety.gov Web site, 

focuses on how to avoid and operate 

safely within the Washington, DC 

Metropolitan Area ADIZ and FRZ. The 

FAA believes that ‘‘pilot error’’ is the 

biggest contributor to violations of the 

restricted/special-use airspaces in the 

Washington, DC area, and through 

training, the number of inadvertent 

incursions into this airspace will be 

reduced. 

C. Air Traffic Control 

Approximately a dozen commenters 

felt that pilot training would not work 

to reduce incursions because the 

training does not address inadvertent 

errors made by air traffic controllers. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
46800 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

The purpose of this rule is to ensure 

that pilots operating in the Washington, 

DC area are familiar and trained in the 

operating requirements. The FAA has 

already conducted separate education 

for air traffic controllers at the Potomac 

Terminal Radar Approach Control 

Facility (TRACON). Additionally, the 

FAA is working to standardize 

procedures for ATC. For example, air 

traffic controllers are now directing 

pilots not to change their transponder 

codes until after landing at the airport. 

D. The FAA’s Enforcement Policy 

Many commenters, including AOPA 

and HAI, said that the FAA’s zerotolerance enforcement policy is not 

appropriate for essentially technical 

errors by pilots who are otherwise 

following ADIZ procedures. AOPA and 

HAI, among others, suggested that the 

FAA is creating ‘‘another hook,’’ to get 

pilots for inadvertent violations. 

Another commenter said that the FAA’s 

enforcement policies do not take into 

account normal human error. In 

addition, there was concern that the 

training rule will ‘‘serve to criminalize 

general aviation.’’

The FAA is requiring this training to 

educate the pilot community on how to 

avoid making inadvertent incursions 

into the Washington, DC ADIZ out of 

concern for the pilot community and a 

desire to alleviate the burden on FAA 

and other governmental resources. 

Anything less than mandating the 

training program undermines the 

importance the agency places on this 

education. Any requirement, if not 

complied with, has the potential for an 

associated enforcement action. 

However, since the intent of this 

requirement is to reduce the number of 

incursions, there should be fewer 

enforcement proceedings related to 

inadvertent incursions. 

Some commenters seemed to support 

the FAA in its endeavor and even 

recommended that the FAA perform 

ramp checks to ensure that pilots took 

the Special Awareness Training course. 

The FAA does not consider ramp checks 

the most efficient way to ensure that 

pilots have taken the Special Awareness 

Training or to enhance the education of 

pilots about flying in the Washington, 

DC ADIZ. The agency will emphasize 

safe operating practices for flying in the 

Washington, DC area during flight 

reviews, practical tests, and the FAAsponsored pilot proficiency awards 

program (WINGS Program), which will 

cover all active pilots. The FAA will 

continue to review the violation history 

trends and modify the training where 

and when necessary. 

NATA expressed concern about 

potential violations when a pilot cancels 

instrument-flight-rule (IFR) operation in 

non-emergency situations and proceeds 

under VFR for landing. NATA said that 

this benefits both the pilot and overburdened air traffic controllers. NATA 

suggested that the FAA create an 

exception for this type of situation. The 

FAA recognizes that some pilots cancel 

their IFR clearances and proceed under 

VFR for landing. However, pilots who 

wish to do so in the airspace covered by 

this rule are required to take the Special 

Awareness Training. 

As discussed in the preamble of the 

NPRM, the flight restrictions for the 

Washington, DC ADIZ and FRZ 

specifically exempt U.S. Department of 

Defense/U.S. military, law enforcement, 

and approved aeromedical operations 

from certain requirements otherwise 

applicable to aircraft entering the ADIZ 

and FRZ. (See FDC NOTAM 07/0206.) 

These operations must be handled 

differently because of their importance 

to national security and safety and for 

the public interest. These exceptions, 

proposed under § 91.161 (d), have been 

retained in the final rule under § 91.161 

(e) ‘‘Exceptions.’’ The paragraph, 

however, has been modified by 

changing the term ‘‘aeromedical’’ to ‘‘air 

ambulance’’ to mirror current 

terminology. An air ambulance is a part 

135 operator that has been issued 

operations specifications that authorize 

the operator to perform air ambulance 

operations in either an airplane or a 

helicopter. (See FAA Order 8900.1, 

Volume 5, Chapter 5.) The exception for 

air ambulance operators does not extend 

to other medically related flights, even 

if they are operated under a lifeguard 

call sign. In addition, paragraph (e) has 

been reworded to associate the 

exceptions with the types of flights 

being performed rather than the persons 

conducting the operations. The 

paragraph now states that if a flight is 

conducted in an aircraft of an air 

ambulance operator, the U.S. Armed 

Forces, or a law enforcement agency, the 

requirements of § 91.161 do not apply. 

The exception includes all operations, 

including repositioning aircraft and 

training flights. 

E. Charting the Training Area 

Many commenters, including NATA, 

AOPA, and HAI, argued that the Special 

Awareness Training zone be shown on 

applicable FAA aeronautical charts. 

Commenters felt that it was 

unreasonable for the FAA to put a 

regulation in place without physical 

representation on a chart. One 

individual even commented that the 

FAA’s actions amounted to the creation 

of a new class of VFR airspace that is 

uncharted. In whole, these commenters 

did not believe that the FAA’s reliance 

on graphics in the training curriculum 

would be sufficient for the pilot 

community. They felt that the graphics 

and information provided by the FAA in 

the NPRM and other material were of 

poor quality or were too vague. These 

deficiencies, argued some, made it 

difficult for pilots to plot the ‘‘training 

zone’’ on their own. Additionally, some 

commenters said, general aviation 

aircraft do not have distance-measuring 

equipment (DME) capable of receiving a 

VORTAC signal 100 NM away from the 

DCA VOR/DME. 

In response to these comments, the 

FAA will add to the note on the 

Washington Sectional, BaltimoreWashington Terminal Area Sectional, 

Baltimore-Washington Helicopter Route 

Sectional, and the CG–21 World 

Aeronautical Chart about the training 

requirement for the Washington, DC 

ADIZ and FRZ airspace, and will depict 

the airspace within 60 NM of the DC 

VOR/DME to notify pilots about the 

training requirements for pilots who 

operate under VFR in this airspace. The 

FAA acknowledges that reducing the 

distance to 60 NM does not necessarily 

resolve the commenters’ concern that 

general aviation aircraft are not able to 

receive the DCA VOR/DME signal while 

still some distance from the DCA VOR/ 

DME. However, the agency believes that 

depicting the airspace on the 

Washington Sectional, BaltimoreWashington Terminal Area Sectional, 

Baltimore-Washington Helicopter Route 

Sectional, and the CG–21 World 

Aeronautical Chart will assist pilots in 

identifying the training area. 

F. Educational Outreach 

Several commenters questioned 

whether the pilots who really need this 

training will be aware of the 

requirement. They fear that only 

knowledgable, conscientious pilots who 

already know about the ADIZ and either 

avoid it or make an effort to comply will 

take the training, but others who are 

ignorant of the Washington, DC ADIZ 

will be unaware of the requirement to be 

trained. AOPA said that the FAA should 

have a plan for conducting aggressive 

educational outreach targeted at 

addressing the most common types of 

violations. 

The FAA publishes its regulations in 

the Federal Register, which is official 

notification to the public. The FAA 

realizes, however, that many 

individuals do not monitor the Federal 

Register. The agency therefore 

maintains communication with aviation 

organizations who publicize FAA 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 46801 

actions to their members through their 

magazines, newsletters, and online Web 

sites. In fact, the FAA heard from one 

commenter that he became aware of the 

proposed rule through AOPA and the 

Experimental Aircraft Association. For 

this particular final rule, the FAA also 

can rely on the NOTAM reporting 

system to be a regular reminder to pilots 

that there is a training requirement 

attached to operating in the Washington, 

DC area. FDC NOTAMs 07/0206 and 07/ 

0211 specifically reference the online 

training. It is a pilot’s responsibility to 

be familiar with all pertinent NOTAMs, 

so pilots, by meeting the requirement to 

check NOTAMs, will be aware that 

training is required. 

G. Impact on General Aviation Pilots 

Many commenters, including AOPA, 

believed that the training requirement 

would add an unnecessary burden on 

the general aviation (GA) community. 

The FAA recognizes the impact the 

training requirement has on the GA 

community, but the agency has 

minimized the burden. The course 

requires little time and is offered free of 

cost. The FAA believes the online 

training is the most economical means 

for pilots to receive training because, for 

most pilots, it can be performed in their 

own homes on their personal 

computers. Furthermore, in response to 

concerns that the proposed training 

zone was too large, the FAA reduced the 

size of the airspace from 100 NM to 60 

NM from the DCA VOR/DME. 

As already discussed, the FAA has 

reviewed the history of Washington, DC 

ADIZ violations, and finds that it is GA 

pilots who continue to make mistakes. 

It is only proper that the training be 

focused on these pilots in order to make 

them more aware that heightened 

security procedures exist in the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area. 

H. Certificate of Training Completion 

Under this final rule, each pilot who 

is required to complete the training 

course should print and maintain a 

certificate of training completion (the 

certificate can be downloaded from the 

http://www.FAASafety.gov Web site). 

Upon request from an authorized 

representative of the FAA, an 

authorized representative of the 

National Transportation Safety Board, 

any Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement officer, or an authorized 

representative of the Transportation 

Security Administration, the pilot must 

present the certificate of training 

completion. The FAA further proposed 

that a pilot did not have to necessarily 

carry the certificate of completion 

document in his or her personal 

possession, but would be required to 

provide it to a requesting official in a 

reasonable time period. This latter 

provision raised concerns with at least 

one commenter. That commenter 

believed that if he were asked to present 

the certificate but he did not have it in 

his personal possession that a follow-up 

investigation would immediately 

follow. 

The FAA notes that, because the 

agency’s database identifies pilots (by 

pilot number) who complete the 

training, the agency would check the 

FAA Safety Database to verify a pilot’s 

claim that he or she completed the 

course. 

I. The FAA’s Web Site 

One commenter pointed out that 

Windows software is not free and 

suggested that the FAA make its Web 

site accessible to other free and opensource browsers. He said this will 

enable Linux and Macintosh (Mac) users 

to access the training regardless of 

model and operating systems. The FAA 

has designed the accessibility for taking 

this online training via the most 

accessible system that is being used 

throughout the world. Most PC- and 

Mac-based browsers will be able to 

access the site using Microsoft Internet 

Explorer 5.5 or above. Internet Explorer 

6.0 or above is preferred. Internet 

Explorer browsers can be downloaded 

for free at: http://www.microsoft.com/ 

windows/ie/downloads/critical/ie6sp1/ 

default.asp. 

Another commenter said that not 

everyone has computers and that the 

FAA is 10 to 20 years ahead of itself. 

The FAA considered that not everyone 

owns a personal computer, although the 

number of pilots who may not have 

access to their own personal computers 

and Internet is small. In addition, public 

libraries provide access to computers 

and the Internet. Thus, the FAA believes 

that establishing this training online is 

the most economical and efficient 

means to provide this training to the 

pilot community. 

J. Adopting a Training Requirement 

Based On a NOTAM 

AOPA expressed concern that 

adopting the training rule while the 

‘‘Washington, DC Metropolitan Area 

Special Flight Rules Area’’ rulemaking 

action is pending suggests that the 

codification of the NOTAM is 

preordained despite overwhelming 

objections. The FAA disagrees that 

adopting the training rule suggests that 

codification of the Washington, DC 

NOTAMs is preordained. Whether the 

airspace restrictions around 

Washington, DC exist via NOTAM or via 

codified regulation in 14 CFR, the FAA 

has determined that training is required 

to safely fly in the Washington, DC area. 

III. Differences Between the NPRM and 

the Final Rule 

The provisions proposed as new 

§ 91.161 are adopted with the following 

modifications. 

• All references in § 91.161 to ‘‘100 

nautical miles of the DCA VOR/DME’’

have been changed to ‘‘60 nautical miles 

of the DCA VOR/DME;’’

• Captions have been added to each 

lettered paragraph; 

• Proposed paragraphs (b) through (d) 

have been redesignated as (c) through 

(e); 

• New paragraph (b) has been added 

to describe the content of the Special 

Awareness Training and information 

about where the training can be 

obtained; 

• Paragraph (e) (proposed as (d)) has 

been reworded as discussed in ‘‘II.D’’

above. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of 

the new (or amended) information 

collection requirement(s) in this final 

rule to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for its review. Affected 

parties do not have to comply with the 

information collection requirements 

until the FAA publishes in the Federal 

Register the control number assigned by 

OMB for these information 

requirements. Publication of the control 

number notifies the public that OMB 

has approved these information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

A description of the annual burden is 

shown below. 

Description of Respondents: The FAA 

estimates that approximately 87,000 

persons that fly under VFR within 60 

NM of the DCA VOR/DME will be 

affected by the rule, and that the 

population of affected persons will grow 

by approximately 0.14 percent per year. 

Estimated Burden: The FAA assumes 

that each person will spend a total of 1 

hour (40 minutes taking the online 

training and 20 minutes taking the test), 

at a cost of time of $31.50 per hour. 

Based on that assumption, the firstyear cost will be $2,740,500 ((87,000 

persons × $31.50) × 1 hour), and time 

spent during the first year would be 

87,000 hours (87,000 persons × 1 hour). 

The FAA estimates that in subsequent 

years (2009–2017), the per-year costs 

will be $3,843 (122 persons × $31.50 per 

1 hour), and time spent during 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
46802 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

subsequent years would be 122 hours 

(122 persons × 1 hour). 

The total cost over 10 years is 

expected to be $2,775,087 ($2,740,500 + 

(9 × $3,843)), with an average cost per 

year of $277,509 (($2,740,500 + (9 × 

$3,843)) ÷ 10). 

The total number of hours over 10 

years is expected to be 88,098 hours 

(87,000 + (9 × 122)), with an average 

number of hours per year of 8,809.80 

hours ((87,000 + (9 × 122)) ÷ 10). 

An agency may not collect or sponsor 

the collection of information, nor may it 

impose an information collection 

requirement unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

V. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs 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, this 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. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this final rule: (1) 

Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. 

Total Costs and Benefits of this Rule 

The FAA has determined that from 

2008 to 2017, the total cost of the rule 

will be approximately $2.78 million 

($2.77 million, discounted). The total 

derives from the cost of requiring pilots 

who fly under VFR within a 60-NM 

radius from the DCA VOR/DME to take 

the training. If the rule were 100% 

effective in reducing the number of 

unauthorized flights into the 

Washington DC, Metropolitan Area 

ADIZ, the potential benefits of the rule 

over 10 years would be approximately 

$35.7 million ($26.8 million, 

discounted). The FAA recognizes that a 

100% rate is unrealistic because there is 

no way to predict the effectiveness of 

the rule. However, the FAA needs only 

a 10% success rate in reducing the 

number of incursions, resulting in 

benefits of approximately $2.7 million, 

for this rule to be cost-beneficial. 

The FAA notes the aviation 

community would receive training at no 

direct monetary cost. Also, this analysis 

does not calculate the benefit of 

avoiding the use of force against aircraft 

that improperly enter the Washington, 

DC, ADIZ or FRZ. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

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 that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. 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 proposed or final 

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 Act. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 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. 

For the most part, this rule will 

impact only individual persons, who are 

not considered as entities under RFA, 

flying VFR within 60 NM of the DCA 

VOR/DME. However, for the few small 

entities that could be impacted by this 

rule, the additional costs are negligible. 

The FAA estimates that the training 

requires only an hour of a pilot’s time 

(estimated at a cost of time of about $32) 

and there is no charge for the training. 

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 Statement 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. 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 

has determined that it primarily will 

have an impact on domestic operations, 

although it could affect some 

international pilots. For example, there 

could be some Canadian pilots affected 

when they fly between Canada and the 

Southern United States. However, this 

rulemaking will have negligible impact 

on foreign firms that provide goods or 

services in the United States. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among 

other things, to curb the practice of 

imposing unfunded Federal mandates 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 46803 

on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Title II of the Act 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 (adjusted 

annually for inflation) 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 inflationadjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu 

of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

FAA has determined that this action 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on the States, or the relationship 

between the national Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, does not have federalism 

implications. 

VIII. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

IX. Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

FAA has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

X. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

XI. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of 

the preamble. You can find out more 

about SBREFA on the Internet at 

http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety, Noise control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 

44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 

44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–

46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 

12 and 29 of the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 

■ 2. Add § 91.161 to read as follows: 

§ 91.161 Special awareness training 

required for pilots flying under visual flight 

rules within a 60-nautical mile radius of the 

Washington, DC VOR/DME. 

(a) Operations within a 60-nautical 

mile radius of the Washington, DC VOR/ 

DME under visual flight rules (VFR). 

Except as provided under paragraph (e) 

of this section, no person may serve as 

a pilot in command or as second in 

command of an aircraft while flying 

within a 60-nautical mile radius of the 

DCA VOR/DME, under VFR, unless that 

pilot has completed Special Awareness 

Training and holds a certificate of 

training completion. 

(b) Special Awareness Training. The 

Special Awareness Training consists of 

information to educate pilots about the 

procedures for flying in the Washington, 

DC area and, more generally, in other 

types of special use airspace. This free 

training is available on the FAA’s Web 

site. Upon completion of the training, 

each person will need to print out a 

copy of the certificate of training 

completion. 

(c) Inspection of certificate of training 

completion. Each person who holds a 

certificate for completing the Special 

Awareness Training must present it for 

inspection upon request from: 

(1) An authorized representative of 

the FAA; 

(2) An authorized representative of 

the National Transportation Safety 

Board; 

(3) Any Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement officer; or 

(4) An authorized representative of 

the Transportation Security 

Administration. 

(d) Emergency declared. The failure to 

complete the Special Awareness 

Training course on flying in and around 

the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area 

is not a violation of this section if an 

emergency is declared by the pilot, as 

described under § 91.3(b), or there was 

a failure of two-way radio 

communications when operating under 

IFR as described under § 91.185. 

(e) Exceptions. The requirements of 

this section do not apply if the flight is 

being performed in an aircraft of an air 

ambulance operator certificated to 

conduct part 135 operations under this 

chapter, the U.S. Armed Forces, or a law 

enforcement agency. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
46804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

1This final rule notice contains references to 

documents assigned Administrative Record 

numbers through our old record system and those 

assigned through the new regulations.gov system. 

OSM is transitioning to regulations.gov and all 

administrative record numbers will be assigned 

through this system in the future. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 5, 

2008. 

Robert A. Sturgell, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–18619 Filed 8–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 944 

[SATS No. UT–044–FOR; Docket ID: OSM–

2007–0014] 

Utah Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We are approving an 

amendment to the Utah regulatory 

program (the Utah program) under the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). Utah proposed revisions to its 

statute and rules regarding permit 

application requirements which may be 

waived with a written determination 

that they are unnecessary by the 

Division of Oil Gas and Mining (the 

Division), permit applications being 

filed in a local public office for public 

inspection, and extensions to permitted 

area being processed as significant 

revisions or applications for new 

permits. Utah is revising its program to 

be consistent with the corresponding 

Federal regulations and SMCRA, clarify 

ambiguities, and improve operational 

efficiency. This amendment package 

contains changes proposed previously 

under UT–042–FOR and UT–043–FOR. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field 

Division, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 

Broadway, suite 3320, Denver, CO 

80202–5733, Telephone: (303) 844–

1400, extension 1424, E-mail: 

jfulton@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Utah Program 

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment 

III. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement’s (OSM’s) Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Utah Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the Utah 

program on January 21, 1981. You can 

find background information on the 

Utah program, including the Secretary’s 

findings, the disposition of comments, 

and conditions of approval of the Utah 

program in the January 21, 1981, 

Federal Register (46 FR 5899). You can 

also find later actions concerning Utah’s 

program and program amendments at 30 

CFR 944.15, 944.20, 944.25 and 944.30. 

II. Submission of the Proposed 

Amendment 

By letter dated August 31, 2007, Utah 

sent us an amendment to its program 

(Administrative Record No. 1 OSM–

2007–0014–0004 & OSM–2007–0014–

0005) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et 

seq.). Utah sent the amendment in 

response to concern letters sent by OSM 

regarding changes proposed under UT–

042–FOR (Administrative Record No. 

UT–1181 dated February 21, 2003) and 

UT–043–FOR (Administrative Record 

No. UT–1193 informal concern letter 

dated February 14, 2006), and to include 

changes made at its own initiative. 

Concerns regarding section 40–10–

10(2)(d) of the Utah Code Annotated 

(UCA) and UCA 40–10–10(5) as 

submitted under UT–042–FOR are 

addressed here and the remainder of the 

UT–042–FOR package is being 

processed through a separate Federal 

Register notice. Utah formally withdrew 

the amendment to Administrative Rule 

R645–303–222 proposed under UT–

043–FOR in a letter dated February 16, 

2006 (Administrative Record No. UT–

1194), and we approved the remainder 

of that amendment package on June 8, 

2006 (71 FR 33249; Administrative 

Record No. UT–1195). 

We announced receipt of this 

proposed amendment in the October 22, 

2007, Federal Register (72 FR 59489). In 

the same document, we opened the 

public comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the amendment’s adequacy 

(Administrative Record No. OSM–2007–

0014–0001). We did not hold a public 

hearing or meeting because no one 

requested one. The public comment 

period ended on November 21, 2007. 

We received comments from two 

Federal agencies and one private 

citizen. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

The following are our findings 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment. 

A. Utah proposes to amend UCA 40–10–

10(2)(d) to read: 

40–10–10(2)(d)(i) A permit application 

will also include the following information: 

(A) the result of test borings or core 

samples from the permit area, including logs 

of the drill holes; 

(B) the thickness of the coal seam found; 

(C) an analysis of the chemical properties 

of the coal; 

(D) the sulfur content of any coal seam; 

(E) chemical analysis of potentially acid or 

toxic-forming sections of the overburden; and 

(F) chemical analysis of the stratum lying 

immediately underneath the coal to be 

mined. 

(ii) Application requirements of Subsection 

(2)(d)(i) may be waived by the division if 

there is a written determination that these 

requirements are unnecessary. 

Utah proposes to revise its statute at 

UCA 40–10–10(2)(d) to include 

recodification and language changes 

that are intended to increase 

accessibility and readability, limit the 

requirements to permit applications 

rather than permit applications and 

reclamation plans, and clarify which 

permit application requirements may be 

waived with a written determination by 

the Department that they are 

unnecessary. 

UCA 40–10–10(2)(d) is being 

recodified as UCA 40–10–10(2)(d)(i)(A) 

through (F), and (ii). This proposed 

change will increase accessibility and 

readability of the section by identifying 

each requirement set forth in a separate 

subsection rather than having all 

requirements stated in one sentence. 

The recodification and minor language 

changes necessary to create separate 

sentences do not change the meaning or 

effectiveness of this provision. 

The proposed language change at 

UCA 40–10–10(2)(d)(i) will replace the 

phrase ‘‘A statement of’’ with ‘‘A permit 

application will also include the 

following’’. This change has the effect of 

limiting the requirements set forth 

under 40–10–10(2)(d) to only permit 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES