[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45290-45297]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0662; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace Area; Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Philadelphia, PA, Class B
airspace area to ensure the containment of large turbine-powered
aircraft within Class B airspace, reduce controller workload, and
reduce the potential for midair collision in the Philadelphia terminal
area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0662 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-2, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking 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 (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-0662 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-2) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at  http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Nos. FAA-2012-0662 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-2.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. 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 through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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 Ave., College Park, GA
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should

contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.

Background

    In December 1974, the FAA issued a final rule that established the
Philadelphia, PA, Terminal Control Area (TCA) with an effective date of
March 27, 1975 (39 FR 43710). In 1993, as part of the Airspace
Reclassification Final Rule (56 FR 65638), the term ``terminal control
area'' was replaced by ``Class B airspace area.''
    The primary purpose of Class B airspace is to reduce the potential
for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports with high
density air traffic operations by providing an area in which all
aircraft are subject to certain operating rules and equipment
requirements. FAA policy requires that Class B airspace areas be
designed to contain all instrument procedures and that air traffic
controllers vector aircraft to remain within Class B airspace after
entry. Controllers must inform the aircraft when leaving and re-
entering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to extend the flight
path outside Class B airspace for spacing. However, in the interest of
safety, FAA policy dictates that such extensions be the exception
rather than the rule.
    The configuration of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area has not
been modified since its establishment as a TCA in 1975. Since then,
increasing operations have prompted a number of changes at the
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). For example, a new runway (8/
26) was opened for use in December 1999; Precision Runway Monitor
procedures were implemented in 2003, which permitted the use of
independent ILS approaches to Runways 27L and 26; and in early 2009,
Runway 17/35 was extended to accommodate continued growth in arrival
demand. The newly extended runway alleviated congestion and delays on
the airport's two major runways. However, the Class B configuration has
not kept pace with airport expansion and increasing operations, and the
current design makes it difficult to comply with FAA's policy to
contain certain aircraft operations within Class B airspace.
    Most aircraft operations at PHL are conducted on parallel Runways
9L/R and 27L/R. Wind conditions dictate operating on a west operation
(i.e., landing and departing to the west) approximately 75 percent of
the year. On a west operation, Runways 27R, 27L and 26 are in use. On
an east operation, Runways 9L/R are in use. The crosswind Runway (17/
35) is also utilized during both operations.

Changes Needed to Existing Class B Airspace

    The current Class B design does not fully contain turbine-powered
aircraft once they have entered the airspace as required by FAA policy.
This deficiency also contributes to increased air traffic controller
workload and frequency congestion. Aircraft on all final approach
courses drop below the existing floor of the Class B airspace while
flying published ILS procedures. This has been documented using the
Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) tool. Lower
Class B airspace floors are needed to protect all final approach
courses and downwinds. A major area of concern is the truncated
boundary along the southeast quadrant of the PHL Class B. The original
purpose of this area was to allow aircraft inbound to LaGuardia, Newark
and McGuire airports to fly up Federal airways east of PHL without
infringing on the Philadelphia Class B airspace area. However, this
Class B configuration on the southeast side is inadequate to contain
aircraft on the downwind and final approach courses for Runway 27 and
Runway 35.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    The FAA prepared a preliminary design of the proposed PHL Class B
modifications to illustrate the need for change and to serve as a basis
for ad hoc committee review. In part, the preliminary design featured a
proposed expansion of the surface area from the current 6-miles to 8-
miles; expansion of the outer limit of Class B airspace from 20-miles
to 24-miles around the majority of the area; lower floors of Class B
airspace in certain subareas; and a cutout around Cross Keys Airport,
NJ (17N).
    An ad hoc committee was formed in 2009 to review the Philadelphia
Class B airspace and provide recommendations to the FAA about the
proposed design. Meetings were held in March and May of 2009 at the
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission's Office of Aviation in
Philadelphia, PA.
    In addition, as announced in the Federal Register of November 30,
2010 (75 FR 74127), six informal airspace meetings were held in the
Philadelphia area. The meetings were held on: February 15, 2011, at New
Castle Airport, New Castle, DE; February 16, 2011, at New Garden
Airport, Toughkenamon, PA; February 17 and February 22, 2011, at Wings
Field, Blue Bell, PA; February 23, 2011, at Flying W Airport, Medford,
NJ; and February 24, 2011, at Freefall Adventures Skydive School,
Williamstown, NJ. The purpose of the meetings was to provide interested
airspace users an opportunity to present their views and offer
suggestions regarding the proposed modifications to the Philadelphia
Class B airspace area.

Discussion of Recommendations and Comments

Ad hoc Committee Input

    The ad hoc committee provided the following input on the proposed
Philadelphia Class B modifications.
    The Committee asked that the surface area cutout be expanded to
include Cooper Hospital and Penn's Landing Heliport (P72) to allow
Medevac helicopter operations below 1,500 feet, and that an additional
ring be created from 6 miles to 8 miles with a 1,000 foot floor so that
flights from the Pottstown area could navigate to the Philadelphia
center city hospital areas without entering Class B airspace.
    The FAA expanded the proposed cutout northeast of PHL to include
both Cooper Hospital and Penn's Landing heliports. A direct route of
flight from the Pottstown area to center city Philadelphia is almost
completely outside of the proposed Class B airspace. A 1,000-foot ring
between 6 and 8 miles is unnecessary because aircraft flying from the
Pottstown area to downtown Philadelphia could remain outside the
proposed Class B with only a small correction to the east.
    The Committee said that the proposed cutout for Cross Keys Airport
(17N) should be widened to allow VFR traffic to operate in a corridor
that provides sufficient access to the airport without encroaching on
skydiving operations.
    The proposed cutout has been reconfigured to allow for skydiving
and access for VFR aircraft arriving from or departing to the
southeast.
    The Committee suggested a cutout south of Wings Field Airport (LOM)
to allow aircraft entering the traffic pattern from the north to cross
over the airport at 2,500 feet then descend to traffic pattern
altitude. The Committee also noted that VFR aircraft maneuvering south
of LOM must be below 2,000 feet to remain below the proposed Class B
floor in that area, which could result in compression and concern about
the 1,600-foot towers nearby.
    Currently, the floor of Class B airspace just to the south of LOM
is 3,000 feet. The proposed modifications would lower that floor to
2,000 feet. We are unable to create a cutout south of LOM because that
portion of the proposed

Class B is designed to protect aircraft being vectored for the ILS
approach to Runway 17 at PHL. Today, aircraft inbound to PHL in this
area are routinely vectored to join the ILS localizer at altitudes
between 2,000 and 2,500 feet. There would be just over 1 mile available
for aircraft approaching LOM from the north and northwest to cross over
LOM at 2,500 feet and descend to enter the local traffic pattern
without entering the Class B airspace. The requested cutout south of
LOM would not allow enough room to keep the Runway 17 arrivals within
Class B airspace. The towers referenced above (known as the Roxboro
Antennas) are located 7.5 miles south-southeast of LOM and should not
be a factor.
    The Committee asked for a cutout east of New Garden Airport (N57)
to allow glider operations to continue.
    While N57 lies well outside the existing 20-mile ring of the Class
B airspace area, the proposed modification would extend the Class B
airspace boundary out to 24 miles (which would lie just to the east of
N57) with a floor of 4,000 feet. N57 is located under an area where a
significant amount of commercial traffic is routed on a daily basis.
When PHL is on an east operation, aircraft landing Runway 9R are
operating in the immediate vicinity of N57. The Runway 9R arrivals from
the north and south are handed off to the Final Vector (FV) controller
who sequences and spaces these aircraft for landing. To accomplish
this, the FV controller vectors and descends the arriving aircraft,
blending the two feeds into one. FAA directives require that the
aircraft be retained within Class B airspace during this process, but
the current Class B configuration does not extend far enough to the
west for controllers to comply with this requirement. The requested
cutout east of N57 cannot be accommodated because it would not provide
sufficient airspace to allow controllers to keep PHL arrivals within
Class B airspace.
    The Committee said a corridor should be adopted to allow general
aviation aircraft flying VFR from the west or northwest of Philadelphia
to transit the Class B airspace with some predictability when en route
to southeast and southern New Jersey.
    The FAA raised the proposed Class B floor in the majority of the
15-mile to 20-mile ring to 3,500 feet. However, two sections between 15
miles and 20 miles (one on the east side and the other on the west
side), would still have a 3,000-foot floor. These two 3,000-foot areas
are essential for containing aircraft on the ILS approaches to the
primary runways. Due to the 3,000-foot areas, pilots would still need
to make a small route change when transitioning to or from the north or
south, but setting the proposed floor at 3,500 feet in the remainder of
the 15-mile to 20-mile ring would allow greater flexibility for general
aviation aircraft operating around Philadelphia. Regarding VFR
services, the FAA encourages VFR aircraft to contact PHL and request
flight following, advisory and/or Class B separation services. This
would allow these aircraft to operate at higher altitudes. PHL Airport
Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) has made a commitment to the user
community to plan for and staff to provide services to aircraft
potentially impacted by the proposed changes to the Class B.
    The Committee proposed that a ``key hole'', or Runway 24 departure
corridor, be established to enable aircraft departing Trenton Mercer
Airport (TTN) to climb at a more expeditious rate prior to entering
Class B airspace. Also, the use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA)
for TTN arrivals to Runway 6 should be considered.
    TTN currently is, and would remain, well outside the proposed Class
B airspace. The FAA believes that the proposed Class B configuration
would allow sufficient opportunity (approximately 7 miles) for aircraft
departing TTN Runway 24 to either contact Philadelphia approach for
Class B clearance or avoid the airspace. CDAs are not operationally
feasible in the TTN area. These IFR procedures allow for a continuous
descent from an enroute or high initial approach altitude to the
runway. ATC sectorization (both inter-facility and intra-facility) in
the area northeast of PHL does not allow any procedures (CDAs or
Optimized Profile Descents--OPD) that require steep, unrestricted
descents.
    The Committee opposed the expansion of the surface area radius to 8
miles because it would place the Commodore Barry Bridge (which serves
as a landmark used by pilots to stay outside the Class B airspace)
within Class B airspace. In addition, the 8-mile ring would place the
Pier 36 heliport inside the surface area.
    The airspace in this area is required to contain PHL arrivals on
the ILS to Runways 9R and 9L. While the proposed 8-mile ring would
encompass the bridge, VFR pilots could still use the bridge as a
landmark but would have to visually remain 2 miles west of the bridge
to avoid the Class B airspace. The expanded ring would also protect
small aircraft from possible wake turbulence caused by large and heavy
jet aircraft landing Runway 9R. The proposal has been revised so that
Pier 36 would be included in the cutout to the northeast of PHL.
Helicopters approaching downtown Philadelphia from the west would be
required to either obtain a Class B clearance or circumnavigate the
airspace as they do today.
    The Committee requested a cutout around Perkiomen Valley Airport
(N10) to accommodate flight school and skydive operations.
    The preliminary Class B design proposed to expand Class B airspace
out to a 24-mile ring. This would have resulted in Class B airspace
being established above N10 from 4,000 feet up to 7,000 feet. The FAA
reevaluated the need for the 24-mile ring, and decided to propose
expanding to 24 miles on only east and west ends in order to encompass
the extended finals to the primary runways at PHL. Therefore, the outer
boundary of Class B airspace would remain at 20 miles in the vicinity
of N10 as it is today.
    The Committee suggested that the FAA consider VFR routes through
the Class B airspace similar to those in Los Angeles, CA.
    Charted VFR routes associated with the proposed Philadelphia Class
B airspace are currently being considered and evaluated by the
Philadelphia ATCT staff.
    The Committee provided an alternative proposed Class B design,
prepared by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). AOPA
contended that the FAA's preliminary design appeared overly complex
with multiple floors and sectors as well as being larger than needed to
contain arriving and departing aircraft.
    As previously noted, the FAA changed the proposal remove to the 24-
mile ring, except on the east and west ends. However, the alternative
design's higher floors and reduced eastern boundary would not meet the
need for containing aircraft on ILS approaches to the primary runways.
The alternative design's 5,000-foot Class B floor to the east and west
of the airport would not provide enough altitudes to separate aircraft
on opposing base legs. In both areas, 4,000 feet and 5,000 feet must be
available for controllers to comply with the vertical separation
requirements while aircraft are on opposing base legs (i.e., head-on).
Class B airspace also must be extended and lowered to the south of PHL
to contain aircraft being vectored to Runway 35. With the increased
usage of that runway, the final approach routinely extends beyond 15
miles.

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    More than 300 people attended the meetings and 46 written responses
were received. Three commenters supported

the FAA's proposal, while the remainder objected to various aspects of
the proposal. The following section discusses the issues raised.
    Many commenters echoed the ad hoc committee recommendation that the
proposed 24-mile ring be eliminated. As discussed above, the FAA
changed the proposal to delete the 24-mile ring, except to the east and
west of PHL along the extended runway centerlines.
    Two commenters contended that the proposed expansion of the surface
area from 6 miles to 8 miles was not adequately justified, would result
in compression of VFR traffic operating below the Class B floor, would
cause the boundary to be difficult to identify visually.
    This issue was discussed, in part, in the ``Ad hoc Committee''
section, above. The expansion to 8 miles is necessary because some VFR
operations are conducted beneath the final approach courses at
locations and altitudes that are causing Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance System (TCAS) Resolution Advisories (RAs) which cause
arriving aircraft to execute unplanned missed approaches. Although the
proposed cutout from the surface area was expanded northeast of PHL in
response to Ad Hoc Committee input, the alignment of PHL's runways (09/
27 and 17/35) makes an 8 mile surface are necessary to protect the
final approach courses to those runways.
    Several commenters requested either a cutout around Brandywine
Airport (OQN) or that the Class B floor above OQN remain at 4,000 feet.
    It is necessary to lower the floor of the 20-mile ring (over OQN)
from 4,000 feet to 3,500 feet, and the floor of the 15-mile ring (east
of OQN), from 3,000 feet to 2,000 feet to contain arrivals landing
Runway 9L as they descend on base leg for approach to PHL.
    Seven commenters had concerns about the effect of the proposal on
glider operations at New Garden Airport (N57). A 5-mile cutout around
N57 was requested.
    The proposed Class B extension to 24 miles would place the boundary
just east of N57, with a floor of 4,000 feet. This airspace is needed
to contain arrivals when PHL is on an east operation. Philadelphia ATC
personnel are discussing with the users of N57 the possibility of
developing procedures via a Letter of Agreement that would minimize the
impact of the Class B change on their operation.
    Ten commenters were concerned about the potential for compression
of traffic and inadvertent Class B intrusions near Wings Field Airport
(LOM) and suggested that the Class B floor over LOM be kept at 4,000
feet; the proposed 2,000-foot floor, south of LOM, be raised to 2,500
feet or 3,000 feet; and/or a cutout around LOM be created.
    The proposed Class B airspace in the vicinity of LOM is intended to
contain aircraft executing the ILS Runway 17 approach at PHL. These
arrivals cross a point about 14 NM north of PHL at 3,000 feet, and
descend on the glide path for Runway 17. VFR aircraft arriving at LOM
currently overfly the airport at 2,500 feet then enter a left traffic
pattern for Runway 24. These aircraft pose a potential conflict with
PHL Runway 17 arrivals. PHL ATCT encourages VFR aircraft to contact PHL
and request flight following, traffic advisories and/or Class B
separation services. This would allow these aircraft to operate at
higher altitudes. PHL ATCT has made a commitment to the user community
to plan for, and staff to provide services to aircraft impacted by the
changes to the Class B.
    Nine commenters suggested changes on behalf of the following
airports located to the east and south of PHL: South Jersey Regional
(VAY), Flying W (N14), Red Lion (N73); and Cross Keys (17N). Issues
raised included: simplifying the design by changing the 3,500-foot
floor northeast of the 17N airport ``cutout'' to either 3,000 feet or
4,000 feet to combine with adjacent areas, making the cutout for 17N
larger, compression of VFR traffic, and creating a corridor similar to
that in the Los Angeles, CA Class B airspace area.
    The proposed 17N cutout has been slightly expanded from the design
presented at the informal airspace meetings, but it could not be
further expanded without having an impact on traffic flows inside the
Class B. Raising the floor to 4,000 feet would not be sufficient to
contain arriving aircraft within Class B airspace, while a 3,000-foot
floor would be more restrictive than needed to contain those aircraft.
The proposal's 3,500-foot floor provides adequate protection for PHL
arrivals while minimizing the impact on VFR traffic. The volume and
flow of traffic at PHL preclude the development of a corridor like the
one through the Los Angeles Class B airspace area. However, VFR flyways
under and around the airspace would be developed as part of the
proposed Class B modification.
    Six commenters suggested changes on the east and south sides of the
proposed Class B, including: raise the Class B floor or create a cutout
over VAY, N14 and N73; modify the Class B north of the 17N cutout so
that the direct route between McGuire VORTAC (GXU) and Cedar Lake
VORTAC (VCN) does not create nose-to-nose VFR traffic at 3,000 feet;
and expand the ``funnel'' between Robbinsville VORTAC (RBV) and VCN
between the Class B boundary and Alert Area A-220 to prevent
compression of VFR traffic.
    The FAA understands that the proposed changes would reduce the
amount of airspace available for VFR operations southeast of the PHL
Class B. To lessen this impact, the 24-mile ring has been reduced in
size as discussed previously. However, because VAY, N14 and N73 all lie
within 24 miles of PHL, as well as in the arrival area, and less than 4
miles from the final approach course, it is not possible to create a
cutout or raise the proposed Class B floor over those airports without
a significant impact on PHL arrivals. PHL ATC would provide clearance
through the Class B airspace to VFR flights whenever possible. In
addition, traffic from PNE and TTN that transitions PHL airspace to
points in South Jersey represents a large number of the conflictions
with arrival traffic to Runways 26 and 27R. As such, the VFR corridor
designed, more than 25 years ago, is no longer viable. It is PHL ATCT's
expectation that this traffic would contact PHL ATCT for flight-
following and/or Class B separation services, thus providing a safer
environment for all users of the ATC system. VFR aircraft wishing to
transit the portion of Alert Area A-220 that would fall within the
proposed Class B airspace would be under the control of ATC and
therefore would receive separation services from any military aircraft.
Pilots that choose to either circumnavigate the area, or fly at
altitudes below the Class B airspace, could operate pretty much as they
do today except at slightly lower altitudes. The possibility of
developing charted routes through the Class B would be considered as a
way to mitigate the potential compression issues identified by the
commenters.
    One commenter suggested the DME distances should be published to
identify the Class B rings.
    The distances depicted in this proposal are measured from the PHL
Airport Reference Point (ARP) defined as lat. 39[deg]52'20'' N., long.
75[deg]14'27'' W. The lack of a VOR/DME facility at PHL, upon which to
base radials and DME distances, limits the options for describing the
airspace. There are six ILSs with DME at PHL. The FAA will explore the
possibility of publishing an alternate description using ILS/DME
distances on the PHL VFR Terminal Area chart with an explanation of how
to use the DME distances as a guide for navigating around the area.

    One commenter was concerned that the Tabernacle, NJ practice area
would not be usable for certain training maneuvers if it was under
Class B airspace.
    The smaller proposed 24-mile Class B extension would not completely
remove the practice area from under Class B airspace; however, no
additional adjustments could be made in that area without impacting PHL
arrivals. Users of the practice area should be able to get a Class B
clearance when PHL is on an east operation and that airspace is not in
use for arrivals.
    A number of commenters stated that there are too many Class B floor
variations in the proposed design which would be confusing to pilots
and it would be difficult to determine the boundaries without GPS
navigation equipment on board. Further, this could cause compression
underneath the Class B.
    Simplicity is a goal of airspace design and it is true that using
one altitude for the entire circle would be less complex. However, the
proposed 3,000-foot floor on the east and west sides could not be
raised to 3,500 feet, as some suggested, without impacting PHL arrivals
because this airspace is necessary to contain aircraft descending to
land at PHL. Lowering the floor to 3,000 feet all the way around for
simplicity would create additional impact on VFR operations by
designating Class B airspace where a 3,000-foot floor is not required
by ATC. The FAA understands the need of VFR pilots to have access to
Class B airspace for safety and efficiency of flight, and plans to make
this available on request whenever it can be provided without impacting
the safety of other aircraft operating in the airspace.
    One commenter proposed that the extensions on the east and west be
made part-time so that they would only be active when actually being
used for traffic containment.
    The suggestion for part-time Class B segments could potentially
decrease the impact on nonparticipating traffic. A similar concept has
been successfully applied to military special use airspace areas.
However, further study of various issues is required to determine
whether the concept is operationally feasible and could be safely
implemented in a Class B airspace environment. These issues include:
procedures for activating/deactivating affected Class B sections and
ensuring real-time pilot notification of airspace status changes,
response to runway changes or closures and inflight emergencies,
aeronautical charting specifications, weather factors, safety; etc.
    One commenter contended that the need for lower Class B floors
could be reduced by eliminating the requirement for aircraft to be
below the ILS glideslope when being turned on to final approach and by
using a two-stage glide slope set at 3 degrees within 8 to 9 miles from
the runway and up to 6 degrees at greater distances.
    These suggestions would require a revision of instrument flight
procedures and the development of new or additional glideslope
equipment which may not be technically feasible and/or may involve
flight safety issues. As such, they are outside the scope of this
airspace proposal.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Philadelphia, PA, Class B
airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) proposes to
modify the lateral and vertical limits of Class B airspace to ensure
the containment of large turbine-powered aircraft once they enter the
airspace, reduce frequency congestion and controller workload, and
enhance safety in the Philadelphia terminal area. The Class B airspace
ceiling would remain at 7,000 feet MSL. Mileages are in nautical miles
and, unless otherwise noted, are based on a radius from PHL ARP (lat.
39[deg]52'20'' N., long. 75[deg]14'27'' W.). The proposed modifications
of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area, by subarea, are outlined
below.
    Area A. This area, extending upward from the surface to 7,000 feet
MSL, would be expanded from the current 6-mile radius to an 8-mile
radius. A cutout would be incorporated in the northeast quadrant of
Area A to accommodate helicopter operations as discussed above.
    Area B. No changes are proposed to this area, which extends from
300 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL.
    Area C. This area, which extends from 600 feet MSL to 7,000 feet
MSL, would remain largely the same except that its boundaries would be
extended outward to meet the proposed 8-mile radius of Area A.
    Area D. This area would extend from 1,500 feet to 7,000 feet
between the 8-mile and 11-mile rings around PHL, with an extension out
to 15-miles to the east of PHL.
    Area E. Area E would extend from 2,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL
between the 11-mile and 15-mile rings from PHL with a cutout around
17N. The existing Class B floor in that area is 3,000 feet MSL.
    Area F. Area F would consist of two sections between the 15-mile
and 20-mile rings. One section would be located west of PHL and the
other to the east of PHL. These sections would extend from 3,000 feet
MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The purpose of Area F would be to contain
arrivals to the primary runways at PHL.
    Area G. This area would extend from 3,500 feet MSL to 7,000 feet
MSL. It would generally lie between the 15-mile and 20-mile rings,
excluding the airspace in Areas F and H. The current Class B floor in
most of that area is 4,000 feet MSL. Area G would also create new Class
B airspace out to 20 miles to the east and south of PHL with a cutout
to accommodate operations at 17N.
    Area H. This area would consist of two sections, extending from
4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, between the 20-mile and 24-mile
rings, to the east and west of PHL. The purpose of this new Class B
airspace would be to contain arrivals to the primary runways at PHL.
    The geographic latitude/longitude coordinates in this proposal are
based on North American Datum 83.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area
proposed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirement associated with this
proposed rule.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
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, 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 proposed
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 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 proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule:
    (1) Imposes minimal incremental costs and provides benefits,
    (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) Would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities;
    (5) Would not have a significant effect on international trade; and
    (6) Would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary
threshold identified.

These analyses are summarized below.

The Proposed Action

    This action proposes to modify the Philadelphia, PA, Class B
airspace area to ensure the containment of large turbine-powered
aircraft within Class B airspace, reduce controller workload, and
reduce the potential for midair collision in the Philadelphia terminal
area.

Benefits of the Proposed Action

    The benefits of this action are that it would enhance safety,
improve the flow of air traffic, and reduce the potential for midair
collisions in the PHL terminal area. In addition this action would
support the FAA's national airspace redesign goal of optimizing
terminal and enroute airspace areas to reduce aircraft delays and
improve system capacity.

Costs of the Proposed Action

    Possible costs of this proposal would include the costs of general
aviation aircraft that might have to fly further if this proposal were
adopted. However, the FAA believes that any such costs would be minimal
because the FAA designed the proposal to minimize the effect on
aviation users who would not fly in the Class B airspace. In addition
the FAA held a series of meetings to solicit comments from people who
thought that they might be affected by the proposal. Wherever possible
the FAA included the comments from these meetings in the proposal.

Expected Outcome of the Proposal

    The expected outcome of the proposal would be a minimal impact with
positive net benefits and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The
FAA requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA
determination of minimal impact.

Initial 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 objective of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the business, 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.
    The proposal is expected to improve safety by redefining Class B
airspace boundaries and is expected to impose only minimal costs. The
expected outcome would be a minimal economic impact on small entities
affected by this rulemaking action.
    Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The FAA requests comments on this
determination. Specifically, the FAA requests comments on whether the
proposal creates any specific compliance costs unique to small
entities. Please provide detailed economic analysis to support any cost
claims. The FAA also invites comments regarding other small entity
concerns with respect to the proposal.

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 as 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 proposed rule and
determined that it would have 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
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 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 proposal does not contain such a mandate; therefore the
requirements of Title II do not apply.

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 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B airspace.

* * * * *

AEA PA B Philadelphia, PA [Revised]

Philadelphia International Airport, PA (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 39[deg]52'20'' N., long. 75[deg]14'27'' W.)
Northeast Philadelphia Airport, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]04'55'' N., long. 75[deg]00'38'' W.)
Cross Keys Airport, NJ
    (Lat. 39[deg]42'20'' N., long. 75[deg]01'59'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 7,000 feet MSL within an 8-mile radius of the Philadelphia
International Airport (PHL), excluding that airspace bounded by a
line beginning at the intersection of the PHL 8-mile radius and the
002[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct to lat. 39[deg]56'14'' N.,
long. 75[deg]12'11'' W., thence direct to lat. 39[deg]55'40'' N.,
long. 75[deg]08'31'' W., thence direct to the intersection of the
PHL 8-mile radius and the 061[deg] bearing from PHL, and that
airspace within and underlying Areas B and C hereinafter described.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 300 feet MSL to and
including 7,000 feet MSL, beginning at the east tip of Tinicum
Island, thence along the south shore of Tinicum Island to the
westernmost point, thence direct to the outlet of Darby Creek at the
north shore of the Delaware River, thence along the north shore of
the river to Chester Creek, thence direct to Thompson Point, thence
along the south shore of the Delaware River to Bramell Point, thence
direct to the point of beginning.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 600 feet MSL to and
including 7,000 feet MSL, beginning at Bramell Point, thence along
the south shore of the Delaware River to Thompson Point, thence
direct to the outlet of Chester Creek at the Delaware River, thence
along the north shore of the Delaware River to the 8-mile radius of
PHL, thence counterclockwise along the 8-mile radius to the 180[deg]
bearing from PHL, thence direct to Bramell Point.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 1,500 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within an 11-mile radius of PHL; and
that airspace within 7.5 miles north and south of the Runway 27R
localizer course extending from the 11-mile radius to the 15-mile
radius east of PHL; excluding that airspace within a 5.8-mile radius
of North Philadelphia Airport (PNE), and Areas A, B, and C.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of PHL,
excluding that airspace within a 5.8-mile radius of PNE, and that
airspace bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the PHL
15-mile radius and the 141[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct to
the intersection of the Cross Keys Airport (17N) 1.5-mile radius and
the 212[deg] bearing from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile
radius of 17N to the 257[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the
intersection of the 17N 1.5-mile radius and the 341[deg] bearing
from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile radius of 17N to the
011[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the intersection of the
PHL 15-mile radius and the 127[deg] bearing from PHL, and Areas A,
B, C, and D.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within 7.5 miles north and south of the
Runway 9R localizer course extending from the 15-mile radius west of
PHL to the 20-mile radius west of PHL; and within 7.5 miles north
and south of the Runway 27R localizer course extending from the 8-
mile radius east of PHL to the 20-mile radius east of PHL, excluding
Area D.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of PHL,
excluding that airspace south of a line beginning at the
intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the 158[deg] bearing from
PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and
the 136[deg] bearing from PHL, and that airspace bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the
136[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the
PHL 15-mile radius and the 141[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct
to the intersection of the Cross Keys Airport (17N) 1.5-mile radius
and the 212[deg] bearing from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile
radius of 17N to the 257[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the
intersection of the 17N 1.5-mile radius and the 341[deg] bearing
from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile radius of 17N to the
011[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the intersection of the
PHL 15-mile radius and the 127[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct
to the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the 120[deg]
bearing from PHL, and Areas A, B, C, D, E and F.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within 7.5 miles north and south of the
Runway 9R localizer course extending from the 20-mile radius west of
PHL to the 24-mile radius west of PHL; and within 7.5 miles north
and south of the Runway 27R localizer course extending from the 20-
mile radius east of PHL to the 24-mile radius east of PHL.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 26, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JY12.000

[FR Doc. 2012-18644 Filed 7-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37203-37204]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ17-13-000]

Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 26, 2017, Orlando Utilities Commission
submitted its tariff filing: Revised Non-Jurisdictional Rate Sheets to
be effective 10/1/2017.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 16, 2017.

    Dated: August 3, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16763 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88313-88314]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice to Manufacturers of Airports In-Pavement Stationary Runway
Weather Information Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering issuing waivers to foreign manufactures
of Active and/or Passive In-Pavement Stationary Runway Weather
Information Systems that meet the requirements of FAA Advisory Circular
(AC) 15015220-30, Airport Winter Safety and Operations. This notice
requests information from manufactures of systems meeting the technical
requirements to determine whether a waiver to the Buy American
Preferences should be issued. Projects funded under the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) must meet the requirements of Buy American
Preferences.

DATES: The information must be received by January 23, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carlos N. Fields, Airports
Financial Assistance, APP 520, Rooms 619, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
manages a Federal grant program for airports called the Airports
Improvement Program (AIP). AIP grant recipients must follow 49 U.S.C.
50101, Buy American Preferences.
    Under 49 U.S.C 50101(b)(3), the Secretary of Transportation may
waive the Buy American Preference requirement if the goods are not
produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of
a satisfactory quality.
    The purpose of this notice is to request manufactures of both
passive and active in-pavement runway surface condition sensor systems,
both domestic and foreign, to advise FAA of the system that they
manufacture and whether it can meet the FAA Advisory Circular technical
requirements. To respond to this notice, manufactures are to submit a
written statement confirming that they currently manufacture passive
and/or active in-pavement runway weather information systems on their
business letterhead and signed by an authorized designee. The FAA wants
to determine if there is sufficient quantity of domestic manufactures
capable of meeting the FAA technical requirements. If the FAA cannot
find that there are enough U.S. manufactures, it may issue a nationwide
waiver to the foreign manufacturers identified as being capable of
meeting the technical requirements.
    Technical Requirements: FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5220-30,
Airport Winter Safety and Operations recommend that in-pavements runway
sensor systems comply with the performances and installations
requirements of SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice 5533, Stationary
Runway Weather Information System (In-pavement). The SAE specification
is available for purchases at http://www.sae.org. Because the guidance
and specification s in an Advisory Circular are mandatory for airport
project using AIP grant funds, as in-pavement runway surface condition
sensor system project that included any AIP grant funding must meet the
requirements of SAE ARP5533.
    After review, the FAA may issue a nationwide waiver to Buy American
Preferences for foreign manufactures or United States manufactures that
meet the Buy American preference requirements. Waivers would not be

issued for manufacturers that do not fully meet the technical
requirements. This ``nationwide waiver'' would allow equipment to be
used on airport projects without having to receive separate project
waivers. Having a nationwide waiver allows projects to start quickly
without have to wait for the Buyer American analysis to be completed
for every project.
    Items that have been granted a ``nationwide waiver'' can be found
on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/buy_american/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, December 1, 2016.
Frank J. San Martin,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-29319 Filed 12-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3238-3241]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0007; Project Identifier 2018-CE-048-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Viking Air Limited (type certificate previously held by
Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model DHC-6-400 airplanes. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion of the

fuel system components located in the fuel gallery due to inadequate
corrosion protection. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (North America) (800) 663-
8444; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
website: https://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(817) 222-5110.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0007; or in person at
the Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the MCAI,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Catanzaro, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0007;
Project Identifier 2018-CE-048-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Joseph Catanzaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, New York ACO Branch,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Canadian AD CF-2018-07, dated February 23, 2018 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on certain
serial-numbered Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6-400 airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    There have been reports of corrosion affecting components of the
fuel system that are located in the fuel gallery because of
inadequate corrosion protection. This condition affects only
aeroplanes operating on floats.
    The effects of corrosion-related damage to fuel system
components have included fuel leaks, electrical arcing, loss of fuel
boost pump function and erroneous fuel quantity readings. Inaccurate
fuel quantity indication and loss of fuel boost pump function can
lead to fuel starvation followed by loss of engine power. Electrical
arcing in the fuel gallery and loss of electrical bonding between
fuel system components increases the risk of fire.

    The MCAI requires repetitively inspecting the fuel gallery for
corrosion, rectifying any deficiencies, and accomplishing modifications
to the fuel gallery system. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2022-0007.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority,
it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on
other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Service Bulletin V6/0044,
Revision `B', dated September 13, 2021. The service information
specifies incorporating multiple design improvement modifications in
the fuel gallery.
    The FAA also reviewed Temporary Revision No. 241, dated July 27,
2021, to the Viking DHC-6 Inspection Requirements Manual, PSM 1-6-7.
Items 15.(1) and 15.(2) of this service information specifies rinsing
and inspecting the entire fuel gallery for corrosion; removing
corrosion; reapplying any protective finishes; and removing and
replacing any damaged components. The temporary revision updates the
fuel gallery inspection to include airplanes with a new fuel probe
(Modification (MOD) 6/2395).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed the following technical bulletins related to this
NPRM, which contain instructions for

the different modifications to components in the fuel gallery:
     Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin TBV6/00034,
Revision NC, dated October 16, 2013 (MOD 6/2267);
     Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin TBV6/00084,
Revision A, dated May 26, 2017 (MOD 6/2299);
     Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin V6/00099,
Revision NC, dated December 23, 2016 (MOD 6/2389);
     Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin. TBV6/00094,
Revision NC, dated November 1, 2016 (MOD 6/2390);
     Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin. V6/00100,
Revision NC, dated February 20, 2017 (MOD 6/2393); and
     Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin V6/00152,
Revision NC, dated January 29, 2021 (MOD 6/2464).

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions described
in the service information previously.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost            Parts cost         Cost per airplane      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect fuel gallery..........  3 work-hours x     Not applicable..........  $255 per           $1,020 per
                                 $85 per hour =                               inspection cycle.  inspection
                                 $255.                                                           cycle.
MOD 6/2267--Fuel boost pump     16 work-hours x    $4,762..................  $6,122...........  $12,244 (for 2
 EMI filter relocation.          $85 per hour =                                                  affected
                                 $1,360.                                                         airplanes).
MOD 6/2299--Improved fuel       17 work-hours x    $42,290.................  $43,735..........  $131,205 (for 3
 boost pump.                     $85 per hour =                                                  affected
                                 $1,445.                                                         airplanes)
MOD 6/2389--Electrical Bonding  18 work-hours x    $572....................  $2,102...........  $8,408 (for 4
 Fuel System Manifold Drain      $85 per hour =                                                  affected
 Valve.                          $1,530.                                                         airplanes).
MOD 6/2390--Fuel probe,         20 work-hours x    $2,129..................  $3,829...........  $11,487 (for 3
 improved mating electrical      $85 per hour =                                                  affected
 connection.                     $1,700.                                                         airplanes).
MOD 6/2393--Fuel system         8 work-hours x     $225....................  $905.............  $3,620 (for 4
 manifold--drain valve.          $85 per hour =                                                  affected
                                 $680.                                                           airplanes).
MOD 6/2464--Fuel pressure       10 work-hours x    $3,953..................  $4,803...........  $14,409 (for 3
 switch replacement.             $85 per hour =                                                  affected
                                 $850.                                                           airplanes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On-Condition Costs

    The extent of corrosion damage found during the inspections may
vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of
determining how much corrosion damage may be found on each airplane,
the cost for repairing corrosion damage on each airplane, or the number
of airplanes that may require repair.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Viking Air Limited (type certificate previously held by Bombardier
Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2022-0007; Project
Identifier 2018-CE-048-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by March 7, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model
DHC-6-400 airplanes, serial numbers 845 through 957, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel
System.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion of
fuel system components located in the fuel gallery due to inadequate
corrosion protection. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
corrosion-related damage to fuel system components, which could lead
to fuel leaks, electrical arcing, loss of fuel boost pump function,
and erroneous fuel quantity readings. This unsafe condition, if not
corrected, could result in fuel starvation with loss of engine power
and increased risk of an in-flight fire with consequent loss of
airplane control.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions for Airplanes Operating on Floats on the Effective
Date of This AD

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD or within 3 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 125 hours TIS, do the following actions:
    (i) Remove all fuel gallery covers and rinse the fuel gallery
with water.
    (ii) Inspect the fuel gallery for corrosion and, if there is any
corrosion, take all necessary corrective actions before further
flight by following Item D.15(2) of Special Inspection 3 in
Temporary Revision No. 241, dated July 27, 2021, to the Viking DHC-6
Inspection Requirements Manual, PSM 1-6-7.
    (2) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
install the modifications applicable to your airplane serial number
by following the Accomplishment Instructions, sections A. through E.
in Viking Air Limited, DHC-6 Twin Otter Service Bulletin V6/0044,
Revision `B', dated September 13, 2021 (Viking SB V6/0044, Revision
`B').

(h) Required Actions for Airplanes Modified To Operate on Floats After
the Effective Date of This AD

    Within 12 months after the airplane is modified to operate on
floats, regardless of whether the landing gear is later modified
back to non-float landing gear, install the modifications applicable
to your airplane serial number by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, sections A. through E. in Viking SB V6/0044, Revision
`B.'

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph
Catanzaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-
7366; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (North America) (800) 663-
8444; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
website: https://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on January 13, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-00970 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31803-31806]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0358]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone for Fifth Coast Guard District Fireworks Display
Currituck Sound; Corolla, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the enforcement
location of a safety zone for one specific recurring fireworks display
in the Fifth Coast Guard District. This regulation applies to only one
recurring fireworks event, held adjacent to the Currituck Sound,
Corolla, North Carolina. The fireworks display previously originated
from a barge but will this year originate from a location on land; the
safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel
traffic in a portion of the Currituck Sound, Corolla, NC, during the
event.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 14, 2012.
    Compliance Dates: This proposed temporary rule would be effective
from 5:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012, through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2012.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email CWO3 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0358) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0358) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

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

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

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

B. Regulatory History and Information

    This fireworks display event is regulated at 33 CFR 165.506, Table
to Sec.  165.506, section (d.) line 5. Last year the Town of Currituck
relocated its fireworks launch location to a site on land. Accordingly
a temporary rule amended the regulation listed at 33 CFR 165.506 last
year and was published in 76 FR 31843. The Coast Guard plans to
permanently amend the regulation at 33 CFR 165.506 at a later date to
reflect this change.

C. Basis and Purpose

    Recurring fireworks displays are frequently held on or adjacent to
the navigable waters within the boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard
District. For a description of the geographical area of each Coast
Guard Sector--Captain of the Port Zone, please see 33 CFR 3.25.
    The regulation listing annual fireworks displays within the Fifth
Coast Guard District and safety zones locations is 33 CFR 165.506. The
Table to Sec.  165.506 identifies fireworks displays by COTP zone, with
the COTP North Carolina zone listed in section ``(d.)'' of the Table.
    The township of Corolla, North Carolina, sponsors an annual
fireworks display held on July 4th over the waters of Currituck Sound
at Corolla, North Carolina. The Table to Sec.  165.506, at section (d.)
event Number ``5'', describes the enforcement date and regulated
location for this fireworks event.
    The location listed in the Table has the fireworks display
originating from a fireworks barge on Currituck Sound. However, this
proposed rule changes the fireworks launch location on July 4, 2012, to
a position on shore at latitude 36[deg]22'23.8'' N longitude
075[deg]49'56.3'' W.
    A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to
view the fireworks display. Due to the need for vessel control during
the fireworks display vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to
provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting
vessels. Under provisions of 33 CFR 165.506, during the enforcement
period, vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive
permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily suspend the regulation
listed in Table to Sec.  165.506, section (d.) event Number 5, and
insert this temporary regulation at Table to Sec.  165.506, at section
(d.) as event Number ``14'', in order to reflect that the fireworks
display will originate from a point on shore and therefore the
regulated area is changed. This change is needed to accommodate the
sponsor's event plan. No other portion of the Table to Sec.  165.506 or
other provisions in Sec.  165.506 shall be affected by this regulation.
    The regulated area of this safety zone includes all water of the
Currituck Sound within a 300 yards radius of latitude 36[deg]22'23.8''
N longitude 075[deg]49'56.3'' W.
    This proposed safety zone would restrict general navigation in the
regulated area during the fireworks event. Except for persons or
vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or
vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the effective
period. The regulated area is needed to control vessel traffic during
the event for the safety of participants and transiting vessels.
    The enforcement period for this safety zone does not change from
that enforcement period listed in Sec.  165.506(d)5. Therefore, this
safety zone would be enforced from 5:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012 through 1
a.m. on July 5, 2012.
    In addition to notice in the Federal Register, the maritime
community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local
Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule prevents
traffic from transiting a portion of the Currituck Sound during the
specified event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant
due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect
and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the
maritime community via marine information broadcasts, local radio
stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly. Additionally, this rulemaking changes the regulated area
for the Currituck Sound fireworks event for July 4, 2012 only and does
not change the permanent regulated area that is published in 33 CFR
165.506, Table to Sec.  165.506, section (d.) event Number 5. In some
cases vessel traffic may be able to transit the regulated area when the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the Currituck Sound where fireworks events are
being held. This regulation will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it will be enforced only
during the fireworks display event permitted by Coast Guard Captain of
the Port North Carolina. The Captain of the Port will ensure that small
entities are able to operate in the regulated area when it is safe to
do so. In some cases, vessels will be able to safely transit around the
regulated area at various times, and, with the permission of the Patrol
Commander, vessels may transit through the regulated area. Before the
enforcement period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories so
mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the temporary change of regulation listed at 33 CFR 165.506
for the event listed in Table to Sec.  165.506, section (d.) event
Number 5. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

    2. Amend the Table to Sec.  165.506 as follows:
    a. Under ``(d) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina--COTP Zone,''
suspend entry 5.
    b. Under, ``(d) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina--COTP Zone,'' add
entry 14, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.506-T05-0358  Safety Zones; Fifth Coast Guard District
Fireworks Displays, Currituck Sound, Corolla, NC.

* * * * *

                                (d) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina--COTP Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Number                     Date             Location                    Regulated area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
14............................  July 4-5, 2012...  Currituck Sound,   All waters of the Currituck Sound within a
                                                    Corolla, NC,       300 yard radius of the fireworks launch
                                                    Safety Zone.       site in approximate position latitude
                                                                       36[deg]22'23.8'' N longitude
                                                                       075[deg]49'56.3'' W, located near Whale
                                                                       Head Bay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2012-12972 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P