[Federal Register: March 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10114-10116]
[DOCID:fr09mr09-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59482; File No. SR-NYSEALTR-2009-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending
NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 17 To Address Issues Related to Vendor
Liability and To Make Amendments and Conforming Changes to NYSE
Alternext Equities Rule 18

March 2, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)\1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 17, 2009, NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Alternext'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 17
(``Use of Exchange Facilities'') to address issues related to vendor
liability. The Exchange also seeks to make amendments and conforming
changes to NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 18 (``Compensation in Relation
to Exchange System Failure''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 17
(``Use of Exchange Facilities'') to address issues related to vendor
liability. Specifically, the proposed rule would require that member
organizations that have trading losses due to malfunctions of third-
party systems provided by the Exchange submit such losses to the
Exchange's compensation fund prior to pursuing legal remedies against
the third-party vendors that provided these systems.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See E-mail from Jennifer D. Kim, Counsel, Office of the
General Counsel, Exchange, to Michou H.M. Nguyen, Special Counsel,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, on March 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also seeks to make amendments and conforming changes
to NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 18 (``Compensation in Relation to
Exchange System Failure''). Specifically, the Exchange seeks to include
in the definition of ``Exchange system failure'' the malfunction of a
third-party system or technology provided by the Exchange, i.e., vendor
and/or subcontractor systems and to codify a net loss requirement for
members or member organizations that seek compensation for losses
sustained from an Exchange system failure.
    These amendments are proposed to conform to amendments filed by the
New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SR-NYSE-2009-16 (to be filed on February 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    As described more fully in a related rule filing,\8\ NYSE Euronext
acquired The Amex Membership Corporation (``AMC'') pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 17, 2008 (the ``Merger'').
In connection with the Merger, the Exchange's predecessor, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary
of NYSE Euronext called NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC, and continues to
operate as a national securities exchange registered under Section 6 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').\9\ The
effective date of the Merger was October 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex
2008-62) (approving the Merger).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Merger, on December 1, 2008, the Exchange
relocated all equities trading conducted on the Exchange legacy trading
systems and facilities located at 86 Trinity Place, New York, New York,
to trading systems and facilities located at 11 Wall Street, New York,
New York (the ``Equities Relocation''). The Exchange's equity trading
systems and facilities at 11 Wall Street (the ``NYSE Alternext Trading
Systems'') are operated by the NYSE on behalf of the Exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex 2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Equities Relocation, NYSE Alternext adopted NYSE
Rules 1-1004, subject to such changes as necessary to apply the Rules
to the Exchange, as the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules to govern trading
on the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems.\11\ The NYSE Alternext Equities
Rules, which became operative on December 1, 2008, are substantially
identical to the current NYSE Rules 1-1004 and the Exchange continues
to update the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules as necessary to conform
with rule changes to corresponding NYSE Rules filed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex 2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58833
(October 22, 2008), 73 FR 64642 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-
106) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58839 (October 23,
2008), 73 FR 64645 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-03)
(together, approving the Bonds Relocation); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59022 (November 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (December 3,
2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-10) (adopting amendments to NYSE Alternext
Equities Rules to track changes to corresponding NYSE Rules);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59027 (November 28, 2008), 73 FR
73681 (December 3, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-11) (adopting amendments
to Rule 62--NYSE Alternext Equities to track changes to
corresponding NYSE Rule 62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments
    Currently, NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 17 provides that the
Exchange shall not be liable for any damages sustained by a member or
member organization growing out of the use or

enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange, except as
provided in NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 18. Currently, NYSE Alternext
Equities Rule 18 affords members and member organizations the recourse
to seek compensation for losses sustained by an Exchange system
failure.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ An ``Exchange system failure'' is defined by NYSE Alternext
Equities Rule 18 as ``a malfunction of the Exchange's physical
equipment, devices and/or programming which results in an incorrect
execution or an order or no execution of an order that was received
in Exchange systems.''
    NYSE Rule 18, Supplemental Material .10 provides that NYSE
Alternext is permitted to file claims pursuant to NYSE Rule 18. NYSE
Alternext shall submit claims for payment on behalf of its members
to the NYSE for compensation for valid claims. NYSE Alternext
members are not permitted to file claims for payment directly to the
NYSE. NYSE Alternext will submit a separate claim to the NYSE for
each claim made by its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the Exchange increasingly offers member
organizations access to certain systems and technologies that are
supplied by third-party vendors and delivered via Exchange systems
(e.g., the Exchange delivers broker algorithms to brokers on the broker
handheld device). These third-party products are designed to enhance
the member organizations' ability to execute trades efficiently.
Notably, the Exchange is acting primarily as a facilitator between the
vendor and the Exchange member using the service. Use of these vendor-
supplied services is not required, and Exchange members can perform
their respective jobs without using these third-party vendor services.
If a member wishes to use such a service, however, the Exchange works
with the vendor and the member to connect the member and to deliver the
service from the vendor to the user. The Exchange also simplifies the
negotiation process, in that a member does not need to separately
negotiate with the vendor to receive the service. Because the services
are supplied and supported by a third-party vendor, however, they are
not explicitly ``systems or facilities of the Exchange.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Exchange services that are outsourced to third-party
vendors but that are part of the core functionality of Exchange
systems are considered ``systems and facilities of the Exchange''
even though they are not physically provided by the Exchange. By
contrast, additional services provided to members and member
organizations by a third-party vendor that are not part of the core
functionality of the Exchange's systems and not required to function
as a member or member organization are not considered ``systems and
facilities'' of the Exchange. As a result, any malfunction of those
additional services would constitute a third-party vendor system
malfunction, not an Exchange malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, NYSE Alternext Equities Rules 17 and 18 do not address
the issue of a member or member organization that sustains a loss
arising from the malfunction of non-core systems or technology supplied
by third-party vendors for use by member organizations.\14\ In light of
the increased availability of third-party technology to provide
additional facilities or services to the Exchange, the Exchange
proposes to amend NYSE Alternext Equities Rules 17 and 18 to address
third-party vendor liability, third-party vendor system malfunction and
the avenue of recourse for members and member organizations as a result
of this third-party vendor system malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The third-party vendors directly provide their services to
the member or member organization. Therefore, the customers are
aware that they are using an Exchange system, which is provided
directly by the Exchange, or a third-party vendor system, that also
has direct contact with the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with member or member organization use of any third-
party vendors provided by the Exchange to members for the conduct of
their business on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes that NYSE
Alternext Equities Rule 17 provide that the Exchange shall not be
liable for any damages sustained by a member, allied member or member
organization growing out of the use or enjoyment by such member, allied
member or member organization of a third-party electronic system,
service, or facility provided by the Exchange, except as provided in
NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 18.
    The Exchange further proposes that members or member organizations
that sustain a loss from the use of these third-party vendors provided
by the Exchange may seek compensation from the Exchange for their
losses in the same way they seek compensation for an Exchange system
failure. Specifically, NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 18 would permit
members or member organizations to file a claim with the Exchange for
losses caused by the third-party vendor's malfunction. These claims
would be evaluated and submitted to the NYSE pursuant to the existing
procedure set out in NYSE Alternext Rule 18 and NYSE Rule 18.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Because NYSE Alternext and NYSE share a common trading
platform, NYSE Rule 18 provides a mechanism for NYSE Alternext
itself to seek reimbursement from NYSE for the amounts that NYSE
Alternext undertakes to pay out to NYSE Alternext members under NYSE
Alternext Equities Rule 18. Under that procedure, after the NYSE
Alternext Compensation Review Panel has determined the number and
amount of claims that NYSE Alternext deems valid, NYSE Alternext
submits to the NYSE a separate claim for each valid claim made by
NYSE Alternext members or member organizations. If the combined
amount of valid claims by NYSE members and NYSE Alternext exceeded
the available funds in the NYSE Rule 18 compensation fund, NYSE
Alternext would receive a partial payment of claims pursuant to NYSE
Rule 18(c), and NYSE Alternext's obligation to compensate its
members for valid claims would be reduced by a like percentage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event that claims arising out of the use of these third-
party vendor systems cannot be fully satisfied because the aggregated
claims exceed the funds available for such payment as set forth in NYSE
Alternext Equities Rule 18, the aggrieved member or member organization
would not be precluded from bringing a claim against the third-party
vendor directly for the balance of the loss amount.
    The Exchange also seeks to make a conforming amendment to NYSE
Alternext Equities Rule 18 to include in the definition of an Exchange
system failure ``any malfunction of any third-party vendor provided by
the Exchange that results in an incorrect execution of an order or no
execution of an order that was received in Exchange systems.''
    Finally, the Exchange seeks to codify its existing policy regarding
the netting of losses prior to submitting claims under NYSE Alternext
Equities Rule 18. Specifically, the Exchange is codifying its
understanding that if members and member organizations retain profits
from a system malfunction, then they are required to net these profits
against their losses from the same malfunction before submitting any
claims under NYSE Alternext Rule 18.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Related system malfunctions that occur repeatedly over the
course of the trading day will constitute one system malfunction for
purposes of determining the aggregation of customer claims resulting
from that system malfunction. Distinct and separate malfunctions
that originate from different system failures are considered
unrelated malfunctions and are treated as separate system
malfunctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a broker enters orders for Customer 1 and
Customer 2. As a result of a system malfunction, Customer
1 derives a profit that would have occurred but for the
malfunction and Customer 2 derives a loss. The broker passes
along the gain to Customer 1, and files a claim with the
Exchange with respect to Customer 2's loss. The broker would
not be required to net the gain against the loss.
    Brokers are required to offer profitable errors to their customers;
in certain circumstances, however, customers may decline to take the
error in which case the error position is retained by the brokers.\17\
If Customer 1 declines to accept the profit, as is the
customer's option, then the broker would retain the profit and must net
is against the loss incurred on behalf of Customer 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Customers may decline to take the gains for varied reasons.
For example, if the cost to the customer of processing the error is
greater than the amount of the error, the customer will likely tell
the broker to keep the error.

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

    The Exchange proposes these amendments to conform the rules of NYSE
Alternext regarding third-party vendor liability, third-party vendor
system malfunction and the avenue of recourse for members and member
organizations as a result of this third-party vendor system malfunction
to the rules of its affiliated Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange
LLC.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and protects investors and the public
interest because it creates a mechanism that adequately addresses
issues of liability for all parties concerned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\20\ The Exchange asserts that the
proposed rule change (i) will not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest, (ii) will not impose any
significant burden on competition, and (iii) by its terms, will not
become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement. 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the instant filing is non-controversial.
The Commission has approved a third-party vendor liability provision
that was filed by the American Stock Exchange which required members
and member organizations to indemnify the Exchange and its vendors and/
or subcontractors and provided that such vendor and its subcontractors
shall not be liable to the member or member organization for any
damages sustained by a member or member organization from use of these
third-party vendor systems.\22\ The Exchange submits that its proposed
rule change is less expansive that Amex Rule 60--AEMI and affords a
member or member organization the ability to recover from a loss
sustained by use of a third-party vendor system. The proposed rule
change offers its members and member organizations two layers of
recourse in the event of a third-party vendor system malfunction, i.e.,
filing a claim pursuant to NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 18 and then
filing a claim directly against the third-party vendor for any
remaining balance of the loss amount. Therefore, the Exchange submits
that this proposed rule filing, in light of the more restrictive vendor
liability disclaimer rules previously approved by the Commission, is
non-controversial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Amex Rule 60--AEMI (``Vendor Liability Disclaimer''). AEMI
(``Auction & Electronic Market Integration'') System was Amex's
Hybrid Market Structure for equities and exchange-traded funds prior
to the merger with NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-13. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-13 and should
be submitted on or before March 30, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4873 Filed 3-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51488-51491]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3146; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-249-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder
(DAH) indicating that the skin lap splices at certain stringers in
certain fuselage sections are subject to widespread fatigue damage
(WFD). This proposed AD would require inspections to detect cracking of
fuselage skin lap splices in certain fuselage sections, and corrective
actions if necessary; modification of left-side and right-side lap
splices; and post-modification repetitive inspections for cracks in the
modified lap splices, and corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin
lap splices, and consequent risk of sudden decompression and the
inability to sustain limit flight and pressure loads.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 9, 2015.

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 http://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
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3146.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3146; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-3146;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-249-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal

inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and
eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a
condition known as WFD. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and
will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without
any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    During Model 777 fatigue testing, skin cracks were found at the
stringer S-14 lap splice. These cracks initiated at scribe lines that
were made inadvertently in production when maskant was removed from the
skin panels. This condition, if not corrected, could result in fatigue
cracking of the skin lap splices, and consequent reduced structural
integrity of the airplane and could cause sudden decompression and the
inability to sustain limit flight and pressure loads.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated
October 10, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for
inspections to detect cracking of fuselage skin lap splices and
repairs, modification to the skin lap splices; and repetitive
inspections for cracks in the modified lap splices and repairs. 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 of this NPRM.

Other Related Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014,
specifies concurrent accomplishment of an inspection of the fuselage
skin for external scribe lines, skin cracks, and repair, which are
described in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated
November 4, 2010. The actions described in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, are required by AD 2013-
07-11, Amendment 39-17415 (78 FR 22185, April 15, 2013); therefore,
those actions are not required in this NPRM.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014,
describes doing inspections for cracks in the skin of the stringer lap
splices and repair, which are also described in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-53A0043, dated November 9, 2011. The actions described in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0043, dated November 9, 2011, are
required by AD 2012-14-03, Amendment 39-17117 (77 FR 42962, July 23,
2012); therefore, those actions are not required in this NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.'' Refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052,
dated October 10, 2014, for information on the procedures and
compliance times.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it
becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the
compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to
WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Explanation of ``RC (Required for Compliance)'' Steps in Service
Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which steps in the service information are required for
compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in
the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's
understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent
judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as RC (required for
compliance) in any service information identified previously have a
direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an
identified unsafe condition.
    For service information that contains steps that are labeled as
Required for Compliance (RC), the following provisions apply: (1) The
steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any
figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the

AD, and an AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including
substeps and identified figures; and (2) steps not labeled as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's
maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an
AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures,
can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an
airworthy condition.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                       Labor cost         Parts cost     Cost per product                     Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and modification.........  2,713 work-hours x $85           $0  $230,605..............  $4,842,705.
                                       per hour = $230,605.
Post-modification inspection........  1,391 work-hours x $85            0  $118,235 per            $2,482,935 per inspection cycle.
                                       per hour = $118,235                  inspection cycle.
                                       per inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

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.
    We are 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

    We 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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will 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 (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-3146; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-249-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 9, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 series
airplanes, certified in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the skin lap splices at certain
stringers in certain fuselage sections are subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of the skin lap splices, and consequent risk of
sudden decompression and the inability to sustain limit flight and
pressure loads.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014:
Do Part 1, inspection ``A,'' of the modification area for cracks;
Part 2, inspection ``B,'' of the modification area for cracks; and
Part 3, inspection ``C,'' of the modification area for scribe lines
and cracks; as applicable; and do all applicable corrective actions;
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, except as
provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) Inspection ``A'' includes an external phased array
ultrasonic inspection for cracks in the lower/overlapped skin of the
stringer S-14 left and right (L/R) lap splices between fuselage
station 655 and station 1434, and an open hole high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for skin cracks at the upper and lower
fastener rows of the stringer lap splices.
    (2) Inspection ``B'' includes the inspections specified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD.
    (i) A detailed inspection for cracks of any skin panel common to
a stringer lap splice

between fuselage station 655 and station 1434 that has a scribe line
0.001 inch or deeper.
    (ii) Either an ultrasonic inspection or a surface HFEC
inspection for cracks (depending on the location of the scribe
line(s)) of any skin panel common to a stringer lap splice between
fuselage station 655 and station 1434 that has a scribe line 0.001
inch or deeper.
    (iii) An external phased array ultrasonic inspection for cracks
in the lower/overlapped skin of the stringer S-14L/R lap splices
between fuselage station 655 and station 1434.
    (iv) An open hole HFEC inspection for skin cracks at the upper
and lower fastener rows of the stringer lap splices.
    (3) Inspection ``C'' includes the inspections for scribe lines
and cracks specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), and
(g)(3)(iii) of this AD on stringer S-14L/R lap splice between
fuselage station 655 and station 1434 on both sides of the airplane.
    (i) A detailed inspection for scribe lines. If any scribe line
is found during the inspection required by this paragraph, the
actions include the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A)
and (g)(3)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) A detailed inspection for cracks of the scribe line area(s).
    (B) Either an ultrasonic inspection or a surface HFEC inspection
for cracks (depending on the location of the scribe line(s)).
    (ii) An external phased array ultrasonic inspection for cracks
in the lower/overlapped skin of the stringer lap splices between
fuselage station 655 and station 1434.
    (iii) An open hole HFEC inspection for skin cracks at the upper
and lower fastener rows of the stringer S-14L/R lap splices.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, specifies a
compliance time ``after the original issue date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time ``after the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) If, during accomplishment of any inspection required by this
AD, any condition is found for which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for
special repair instructions or supplemental instructions for the
modification, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance): Before further flight, do the repair or modification
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(i) Lap Splice Modification

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated
October 10, 2014: Do the left-side and right-side lap splice
modification, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014,
except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

(j) Post-Modification Inspections and Corrective Action

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated
October 10, 2014: Do a post-modification internal surface HFEC
inspection for skin cracks in the modified lap splices on both sides
of the airplane; and do all applicable corrective actions; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, except as
provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of
the modified lap splices thereafter at the applicable intervals
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and
(k)(4)(ii) apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Haytham Alaidy,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2015.
Kevin Hull,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20853 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 1 DAPN ( a. k. a. " NSR III") Proposed Rule Qualitative Environmental Analysis I. OVERVIEW In May 2001, President Bush's National Energy Policy Development Group issued findings and key recommendations for a National Energy Policy. This document included numerous recommendations for action, including a recommendation that the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and other relevant agencies, review NSR regulations, including administrative interpretation and implementation. The recommendation requested that we issue a report to the President on the impact of the regulations on investment in new utility and refinery generation capacity, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.

In response, in June 2001, we issued a background paper giving an overview of the NSR program. We solicited public comments on the background paper and other information relevant to the NSR 90 day Review and Report to the President. During our review of the NSR program, we met with more than 100 groups, held four public meetings around the country, and received more than 130,000 written comments. Our Report to the President and our recommendations in response to the energy policy were issued on June 13, 2002.

We previously finalized responses to the energy policy recommendations on December 31, 2002 ( 67 FR 80186) and October 27, 2003 ( 68 FR 61248). We are now proposing regulations for " aggregation" and " debottlenecking" that are two remaining recommendations. We also are proposing a change to our past policy for project netting. This document analyzes the environmental impact of these proposals. As described below, we have determined that these proposed reforms for debottlenecking, aggregation, and project netting will provide greater regulatory certainty without sacrificing the current level of environmental protection and benefit derived from the NSR program. We believe that these changes will facilitate the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of affected facilities.

This document is not intended to be a formal Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) or Economic Impact Analysis as those terms are used in Agency rulemaking. The proposed NSR DAPN rule does not require a formal RIA under Executive Order 12866 because the rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

This analysis qualitatively examines whether changes in emissions are likely to occur as a result of these proposed rule provisions, but does not attempt to assign monetary values to any such changes. This analysis also does not assign monetary values to the other types of benefits DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 2 that we expect to occur as a result of this rule proposal, such as the reduction in administrative costs from the streamlining of the permit process and the decreased opportunity cost from delayed changes. Quantifying these non environmental benefits is outside the scope of this analysis.

II. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to provide information on the potential environmental effects of the NSR rules that EPA is proposing. This information is intended to provide additional information to the public as a basis for developing these rules. Indeed, the EPA's long and detailed records support the need for improving the NSR program, and, consistent with standard rulemaking processes, we are fully explaining the legal and policy basis for our actions. The proposed rules are fully justified as a legal and policy matter, and the soundness of EPA's qualitative basis for the rule does not depend on its ability to specifically quantify the environmental impact of the rule.

It is important to note that NSR is one of many programs created by the Clean Air Act to control or reduce emissions of air pollutants   particularly criteria pollutants   that are emitted from a wide variety of sources and have an adverse impact on human health and the environment. Other key programs include: the title IV Acid Rain Program, Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) and other air toxics standards for control of Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPs), New Source Performance Standards, the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR), the 22 state NOx " SIP Call," the Clean Air Visibility Rule ( CAVR) and the Regional Haze program, numerous mobile source programs, and the basic state and local air control programs to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS). Together, these programs have achieved, and will continue to achieve, tens of millions of tons per year of reductions which are completely unaffected by this proposed rule.

While the variety of programs mentioned above will continue to play the dominant role in reducing emissions of air pollution, the NSR program will continue to serve its intended role of assuring that new and significantly modified sources, when they increase their emissions, are wellcontrolled and permitted consistent with these overall air quality management programs. NSR is a broad program that covers new and modified sources across a wide range of source categories, and only a small portion of the sources covered by NSR  specifically, those major sources [ FOOTNOTE] that undergo physical changes or changes in the method of operation   would be affected by these proposed regulatory revisions. The NSR recommendations by the Energy Policy Task Force provide a targeted set of rule changes that focus on issues related to modifications to existing emissions units. EPA estimates that more than 80 percent of the NSR's benefits come from regulating new sources and new units at existing sources. [ FOOTNOTE]

Having set forth the overall context of this analysis, there are fundamental limitations on the ability to do a full quantitative analysis of the environmental benefits of these proposed NSR reforms. In many EPA air rules, it is possible to do a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 1 U. S. EPA. " Suppplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules." November 21, 2002.

3 health and environmental benefits of the regulation. These types of analyses rely upon the ability to estimate the effects that the regulation is expected to have on emissions over time. If the locations of the projected emissions changes are reasonably well known, models can be used to estimate air quality impacts, and this information can be used to estimate resulting health and environmental benefits. Thus, where one can reasonably quantify the projected emissions impacts of a particular rule, it is possible to estimate that rule's impact on public health. However, for reasons explained below, the EPA cannot quantify with specificity the emissions changes for a given pollutant or pollutants, if any, that could result from these proposed NSR rule changes, nor can we reliably determine the anticipated locations of any emissions changes. The following list illustrates the reasons why a more detailed provision by provision health analysis of the proposed NSR revisions is not possible:

° New vs. Modified sources. EPA's previously reported estimates of the magnitude of NSR benefits are calculated based on permitting data for all types of sources   new " greenfield" facilities, new units at existing facilities, and modifications to existing units. 1 However, these proposed NSR reforms apply primarily to modifications at existing units. As noted above, less than one fifth of the 1997 99 PSD benefits were from projects that involved modifications to existing units. However, the data available do not allow identification of modified units with sufficient specificity ( e. g., location, number, size of affected units) to develop any more detailed estimate of the possible benefits of these proposed rules.

° Difficult to link permits to environmental results. The proposed NSR rule changes relate primarily to the provisions governing whether a source must obtain an NSR permit. Although we believe that slightly fewer sources will undergo the full NSR permitting process as a result of these proposed rule changes, many of these sources will still be subject to alternate NSR provisions that the EPA finalized in 2002 ( e. g., the requirement to cap emissions). There is not a straightforward relationship between the changes in number of permits and the real changes in emissions resulting from the collection of these proposed reforms and the previously finalized reforms. Also, the number of NSR permits is a poor indicator for the program's environmental benefit for several reasons:

° The emissions benefits that result from an NSR permit process vary widely. They may be quite large in cases such as a new greenfield source, but can be negligible ( or zero) in such cases as a modification to an already well controlled unit.

° The avoidance of a permitting process does not necessarily mean that emissions will increase. As discussed in our June 2002 report to the President, we concluded that the NSR program, in a variety of ways, has impeded or resulted in the DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 4 cancellation of projects that would have maintained and improved the reliability, efficiency, or safety of existing energy capacity. The impediments exist for nonenergy sources as well. In short, we believe that our past policies, some of which are simply unclear, can have the effect of leading sources to artificially constrain production and have discouraged plant owners or operators from engaging in projects that are important to restoring, maintaining and improving plant safety, reliability, and efficiency.

° The type of benefit, if any, that results from a permit process depends on the type of source, the pollutants it will emit, and the air quality in the area where it locates. We cannot resolve these differences as they may relate to these proposed reforms, because it is not possible to model source behavior with sufficient specificity. This not only affects the ability to generate emissions estimates, but also severely hinders any ability to relate this to health benefits.

° The NSR program can lead to changes in source behavior that have environmental effects even for sources that do not get an NSR permit. Many of these effects may be such that elimination of a permit requirement actually yields an environmental benefit. Similarly, the rule removes barriers and creates incentives for more energy efficient or lower emitting processes, but does so without requiring a full NSR permit process. Permitting data tell us little about these effects, and it is very difficult to model source behavior to predict these effects some other way.

° The NSR program allows for emissions increases to occur, as long as they are well controlled. From an overall air quality standpoint, the facilities that go through NSR do not necessarily get emissions reductions needed to attain and maintain air quality standards, and may, in fact, increase emissions. Absent other air quality management programs, emissions avoided by NSR may simply appear elsewhere in the same airshed. Thus, a higher level of NSR permitting in an area does not necessarily indicate cleaner air.

° Detailed records not usually kept. These proposed reforms relate mainly to the NSR applicability process, which is an element of the NSR program for which there is only limited quantitative information available. While sources may do detailed applicability calculations to determine whether to apply for a permit, EPA does not have records of these calculations because ( 1) when a source determines not to apply for an NSR permit, EPA is usually not notified, and ( 2) when a source does apply for an NSR permit, it is not required to prove to EPA or the State permitting agency that it is subject.

Because of these and other difficulties, it is very difficult to model the likely changes in emissions or air quality that will occur as a result of these proposed provisions and, thus, to carry forward a health analysis of these changes. Clearly, the following assessment is qualitative, not DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 2 For an explanation of the term " debottlenecked" emissions units, or " debottlenecking," see preamble section III. A. 2 of the proposed rule.

5 quantitative. Nonetheless, the EPA understands that, where available, quantitative information can provide a useful supplement to these conclusions. For that reason, we are specifically requesting data through this rule proposal on the potential environmental impacts of these reforms. If we are presented with usable data to analyze, we will include that information in the analysis for the final rule.

III. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS A. Debottlenecking Our current regulations define a " major modification" as one in which a physical change or a change in the method of operation of a major stationary source results in a significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant (" Step 1" of NSR applicability) and a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant at the source (" Step 2"). The total increase in emissions that must be included in determining if there will be a post change significant emissions increase includes: ( 1) increases occurring at all new or modified units, and ( 2) any other increases at existing emissions units not being modified which could experience emissions increases related to the change. Thus, for a new project at an existing unit, the emission increase associated with the project is based on the " actual to projected actual" test and includes increases projected not only from the unit( s) undergoing the change but also from all other unit at the major stationary source that result from the change, such as units that are debottlenecked. 2 When an emissions increase is projected at a debottlenecked emissions unit as a result of a change occurring at another unit, the increase must be added to the increase projected at the changed unit, along with the sum of all contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases, to determine whether NSR applies to the source. Consequently, even when a project increases emissions by less than a significant amount at the changed unit, the project would trigger major NSR if: ( 1) it debottlenecks another unit at the source; ( 2) the emissions increase ( of that same pollutant) is large enough at the debottlenecked unit that there is a significant emissions increase; and ( 3) there are too few contemporaneous emissions decreases to avoid having a significant net emissions increase. If NSR applies, then the source goes through permitting, the changed unit undergoes a Best Available Control Technology ( BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate ( LAER) analysis, and the emissions increase is accounted for in the air quality analysis.

In this analysis, we compare our proposed debottlenecking provisions to the current rule provisions. The proposed provisions would apply the same actual to projected actual test to debottlenecked units as do the current rules, but only in cases where " causation" is established. Thus, when a project at an emissions unit debottlenecks an upstream or downstream unit, the DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 6 proposed rules do not automatically assume that any emissions change at the unchanged unit resulted from the project unless the emissions increase could not have been accommodated prior to the change. This approach is consistent with how our " actual to projected actual" emissions test is structured, allowing a source to subtract from its post project emissions those emissions that the unit could have accommodated during the baseline period and that are unrelated to the change ( referred to as the " demand growth exclusion"). That is, the source can emit up to its current maximum capacity without triggering major NSR under the actual to projected actual test, as long as the increase is unrelated to the physical or operational change. We are proposing that causation can take any of the following three forms: ° Legal ( i. e., previously authorized through a permit at the unchanged unit); ° Physical ( i. e., the unit previously able to accommodate the increased productive capacity from demand at the other parts of the plant or off site of the plant); and ° Economic ( i. e., same as physical but considers how economically feasible it would have been to previously operate at higher levels).

We expect that any of the three causation principles presented above would better identify projects for which major NSR should apply than did our prior debottlenecking policies. Major NSR will continue to apply when projects cause an emissions increase greater than the significance levels. Thus, we believe the proposed approaches are sound interpretations of the statute and strike a better balance between Congress' desire to promote economic growth and the need for environmental protection than does the current approach.

We are assessing whether environmental protection benefits resulted from the current debottlenecking rule and policies that would not occur under the proposed new approach. We recognize that the proposed emissions test for debottlenecked units, when final, could, theoretically, result in fewer projects undergoing major NSR than would the current rules. However, there are a number of reasons why, in practice, this rule will not impact many projects at all, including:

° Since we do not require unchanged units to install controls, we are only concerned with those projects that would apply controls at the changed unit under the old rules that would not apply the same level of control under the proposed debottlenecking provisions. Specifically, the affected types of projects are limited to those that involve changes to emissions units that themselves result in de minimis increases but would have triggered NSR under only the current rules ( and not the proposed rules) due to emissions increases at the debottlenecked unit( s) at the source. This is described in more detail below in the description of how the proposed rule would impact different scenarios.

° The universe of emissions units that are now potentially subject to the debottlenecking provisions of our rules has been reduced as a result of recently finalized NSR rule provisions, such as " Actuals PALs" and the " actual to projected actual" emissions test for DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 7 nonutility sources.

° The current debottlenecking emissions methodology provides an inherent incentive to keep actual emissions high, since the baseline for determining emissions increases at modified units is based on a source's actual emissions. Through removing incentives to keep pollution high, and through removing barriers to emissions reducing changes, EPA believes there could be environmental benefits that result from switching to the proposed debottlecking emissions test. However, it is difficult to model the behavior of individual sources in sufficient detail to quantify these benefits, either locally or nationally.

° By implementing this proposed debottlenecking approach, facilities will no longer be discouraged from undertaking more energy efficient projects and lower emitting processes than in the past, which will result in decreased emissions from the changed emissions units per unit of production while maintaining the debottlenecked unit within its permitted allowable emissions. On the other hand, if a proposed project is determined to be a major modification, the source is still required to perform an air quality impact analysis ( and obtain offsets if located in a nonattainment area). Some reviewing authorities may also require that sources with projects that qualify as minor NSR perform modeling to ensure protection of the NAAQS and PSD increments.

Given the above described conditions and factors, we examined the range of scenarios that could occur as a result of implementing the proposed debottlenecking provisions. There are three principal emissions unit scenarios, some of which require a more detailed examination into the range of sub scenarios. At issue is whether, in any of the scenarios, controls could be required for the changed unit under the current debottlenecking rules ( i. e., major NSR is triggered), but would not be required under the proposed rule. For simplicity, we base our conclusions on a legal causation test, since that option appears to be the easiest to implement. Also, we assume in each scenario that the debottlenecked unit's emissions are higher than historical emissions levels. Since those units are not physically or operationally changed by the project, to increase their operation or utilization would logically mean they would emit more than when bottlenecked.

First principle scenario is where a plant is making a change at a nonemitting unit ( e. g., steam turbine) and, in doing so, it debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it. For nonemitting units that undergo a change, since they have no emissions, we do not require application of BACT or LAER at the unit. Thus, for changes at nonemitting units, these proposed provisions do not change the BACT outcome.

The second principle scenario is where a well controlled unit ( e. g., has BACT or MACT controls) is changed and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it. This scenario has a few different tiers of analysis to it.

° For emissions units that have a greater than significant emissions increase of a pollutant at DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 8 the changed unit, there is no change in whether emissions controls would be required at the changed unit under the current or proposed debottlenecking provisions.

° For changed units that have a less than significant ( i. e., de minimis) emissions increase of a pollutant, and the debottlenecked unit has an emission increase, but of a different pollutant, then there is also no difference in the control requirements between the proposed and current rules. This is because our rules apply on a pollutant by pollutant specific basis; thus, BACT and LAER is only triggered at a changed emissions unit when the the pollutant that has a significant net emissions increase is emitted by that unit. For example, it is common for recovery boilers at a pulp and paper mill to be initially contructed with additional capacity to handle plant expansion projects. Being oversized, they are underutilized and, therefore, bottlenecked until the plant expansion projects are implemented. When the plant decides to install a larger digester to increase black liquor production, the recovery boiler is debottlenecked and will increase emissions due to additional operation. However, the boilers emit NOx, SO2, PM, and CO, while the digester's blow tank emits a variety of volatile organic compounds ( VOC) and perhaps some total reduced sulfur ( TRS). Thus, the increased NOx emissions from the boiler would not count toward triggering the major NSR threshold at the changed unit, since NOx is not emitted by the changed unit.

° For changed units with a de minimis emissions increase of a pollutant and the debottlenecked unit has an emissions increase of that same pollutant, but the debottlenecked unit does not have a practically enforceable permit. Therefore, the current debottlenecking emissions test ( i. e., actual to future actual with presumed causation) and thus there is no change in whether emissions controls would be required at the changed unit under the current or proposed debottlenecking provisions.

° For changed units with a de minimis emissions increase of a pollutant and the debottlenecked unit has an emissions increase in that same pollutant, but when applying the current debottlenecking rules ( i. e., actual to future actual with presumed causation) the collective emissions of the change remains beneath the de minimis threshold, then there is no change in whether emissions controls would be required at the changed unit under the current or proposed debottlenecking provisions.

° For changed units with a de minimis emissions increase of a pollutant and the debottlenecked unit has an emissions increase of that same pollutant. The debottlenecked unit has a practically enforceable permit, but its post change emissions do not exceed its permit. Collectively, the emissions from the changed and unchanged unit exceed the significance threshold for that pollutant, when applying the current rules for calculating emissions from debottlenecked units. In this case, the proposed rule changes would mean the difference between triggering major NSR requirements and, thus, requiring a BACT or LAER assessment at the changed emissions unit. However, we expect that in most of DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 3 See 40 CFR 51.165( a)( 3).

9 these cases, if the changed unit is well controlled, then an BACT or LAER review would not result in additional emissions reductions since, for BACT, the cost effectiveness of applying additional controls on an already well controlled process unit can be very high. In other words, the incremental amount of emissions that will be reduced by applying additional controls is unreasonable considering the capital and operating cost of new control equipment. Thus, no additional controls would be required in attainment areas. This is particularly true for surface coating operations, most of which have been required to control to MACT levels and is unlikely that a BACT analysis would achieve higher control than is required under MACT. Likewise, if the source has already undergone a recent LAER review, it is difficult to imagine that controls would have advanced so much in a short period of time that would result in additional controls. Thus, no additional controls would be required in nonattainment areas.

The third principle scenario is where an uncontrolled, or a poorly controlled, emissions unit is changed and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it. All of the sub scenarios for this scenario mirror the sub scenarios for a well controlled unit undergoing a change, except for the last one described above. It is conceivable that if an uncontrolled emissions unit experiences a physical change and has a de minimis emissions increase of a pollutant and the debottlenecked unit has a " within its permitted" emissions increase of that same pollutant, and their collective emissions exceed the significance threshold for that pollutant, then a BACT or LAER assessment could result in control requirements under the current rules, while the proposed new rules would not cause major NSR to be triggered. However, we strongly expect that many of these changes to poorly controlled emissions equipment will actually cause emissions to decrease, rather than increase, at the uncontrolled unit. This is because many of the poorly controlled units are older and are being replaced or modified with cleaner technology, even without applying controls. Also, minor NSR requirements may require controls on even de minimis emissions increases. This means that there are very few units that would actually see a significant emissions increase, unless the debottlenecked units experience a very large emissions increase. This is certainly possible, but the debottlenecked units' emissions increase would have to exceed the emissions decrease at the changed unit, plus the significance level, to cause major NSR to be triggered, which is difficult to envision. Finally, in the few cases that remain where major NSR is triggered, we expect that the source will examine a number of options on how to proceed, but is likely to avoid major NSR   e. g., accepting permit limits, cancelling the project, etc.   after weighing the additional production against the cost of expensive controls.

In the rare case that a project avoids triggering major NSR under the proposed new debottlenecking rules, but its emissions increase would have triggered major NSR under the current rules, the project could cause an emissions increase in nonattainment areas as a result of our emissions offset regulations. 3 However, CAA § 173( a)( 1)( A) requires States to monitor new DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 10 sources and minor source growth through a nonattainment area plan that achieves reasonable further progress toward attaining the NAAQS based on allowable emissions; thus, States must account for these new emissions in their inventory and attainment demonstrations, even when major NSR is not triggered. Similarly, the CAA § 163 requires States to address overall emissions in attainment areas by monitoring and tracking PSD increment consumption based on allowable emissions of specified pollutants. Thus, the CAA authorizes States to address and mitigate allowable emissions increases through SIP planning, and we expect that States will use this mechanism to properly mitigate increased emissions caused by debottlenecking at sources. We are asking for comment on how our proposed provisions will affect air quality in light of our emissions offset requirements and reconcilation of attainment demonstrations.

For these reasons, we expect the environmental impact of requiring our proposed emissions test for debottlenecked units will be negligible. As discussed in the scenarios above, we expect the vast majority of sources will be unaffected by this change.

B. Aggregation The term " aggregation" is relevant to Step 1 of the NSR applicability test, and describes the process of grouping together multiple projects ( i. e., physical changes or changes in the method of operation) and summing their emissions changes for purposes of determining whether a significant emissions increase occurs at the major stationary source. Specifically, when undertaking multiple projects, the source must consider whether NSR applicability should be determined collectively or whether the emissions from each of the projects should separately undergo a Step 1 analysis.

We are proposing to add our aggregation policy to our NSR regulations to achieve greater national consistency and provide further clarity in aggregation determinations. This will codify the provisions of our existing policy and provides specific circumstances where emissions should be aggregated for purposes of NSR applicability. EPA proposes to revise the regulations to state that a source must aggregate emissions from projects that are technically or economically dependent. This will reduce the uncertainty that industry and regulators have faced in the past with the lack of documentation of our aggregation policy.

The impact of this rule proposal is environmentally neutral because we are simply proposing to codify our existing aggregation policy.

C. Project Netting This proposal proposes to revise and change the current rules with respect to projects that involve both increases and decreases in emissions. We are concerned with inconsistent implementation of our past policy that considers only emissions increases in Step 1 of the NSR applicability test. We are proposing that all emissions changes ( i. e., both increases and decreases) DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 11 that occur within the scope of a project be counted in Step 1 of the NSR applicability test. This proposed change would streamline permitting by moving the consideration of creditable decreases associated with the project from Step 2 of the NSR test ( i. e., the contemporaneous netting step) to Step 1.

As with our debottlenecking analysis, we expect the emission consequences of this proposed action are best analyzed by reviewing the range of scenarios. There are four scenarios to consider. At issue is whether, for any of the scenarios, major NSR ( and, thus, a control technology review) would be triggered under the current rules that do not allow for project netting, but would not be triggered under the proposed rule provisions. Each of these scenarios is shown in Table 1 for illustrative purposes and described below.

Scenario Rule Version projected increase projected decrease contemp. increase contemp. decrease Step 1 Step 2 Major NSR?

1 old rules 60 30 60 30 No proposed rules 60 30 30 N/ A No 2 old rules 60 30 + 5 60 25 No proposed rules 60 30 5 35 N/ A No 3 old rules 60 15 30 60 45 Yes proposed rules 60 30 15 30 N/ A No 4 old rules 60 15 30 60 45 Yes proposed rules 60 30 15 30 N/ A No Table 1. Project Netting Scenarios Under the first scenario, the source has an emissions increase ( 60 tpy) and decrease ( 30tpy) associated with the project, and has no other increases or decreases that have occurred within a contemporaneous period ( i. e., 5 years). As the table shows, allowing for project netting in this scenario does not change the outcome of the overall NSR applicability test. It simply means that the decreases are counted in Step 1 rather than Step 2. Since there are no other increases or decreases to consider, the outcome of NSR applicability is the same under either rule. DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 12 Under the second scenario, the source has contemporaneous decreases, but not increases. As in the first scenario, counting the decrease in the Step 1 rather than Step 2 makes no difference in the outcome of NSR applicability, since there are only other decreases ( in this case, 5 tpy).

Under the third scenario, the source has contemporaneous decreases and increases. In this case, it depends on whether a source would have netted out under the current rules. If netting under the current rules ( i. e., only contemporaneous netting) would cause the source to not trigger major NSR, then there is no difference in whether project netting is allowed. However, if the netting under the current rules would have still triggered major NSR, then it is possible that the new provisions for project netting would allow the source to not trigger major NSR. For example, a source expects a project to increase emissions by 60 tpy at an emissions unit and decrease emissions by 30 tpy at another unit at the source. The source has contemporaneous increases and decreases totalling 15 tpy. Under the current rules, project netting is not allowed, so a Step 1 analysis would reveal a 60 tpy emissions increase, and the Step 2 analysis would equal 45 tpy ( i. e., 60  30 + 15), which is a significant net emissions increase, thereby triggering major NSR. However, under the proposed rule provisions, project netting will be allowed, which means that the Step 1 analysis would reveal a 30 tpy increase ( i. e., 60  30), which is not a significant emissions increase and therefore major NSR is not triggered ( i. e., no requirement to proceed to Step 2). However, in these cases, rather than assuming that NSR will be triggered, it is important review the types of project and anticipate whether the owner would still proceed in doing the project in light of major NSR being triggered. For example, if the source is removing older, rundown equipment and replacing it with new highly efficient unit that pollutes less even without control, then there is a potential emissions benefit under proposed rule.

Under the fourth scenario, the source has contemporaneous increases only. This scenario mirrors closely the third scenario   i. e., there may be cases, depending on the amount of contemporaneous emission increase and the project decrease, that NSR could be triggered under the current rules and not triggered under the proposed rules. However, if this happens, it is likely that a source could weigh the benefits of the project and may opt to avoid NSR by either taking a permit limit or cancelling the project. In cases where these NSR triggered projects would cause a net environmental benefit, this would be an unfortunate outcome of not proceeded with finalizing the proposed rules. And, for well controlled units, it is likely that an additional BACT or LAER review would result in no added control.

We do not have enough information to determine whether, or how much of, an emissions increase could result from allowing for project netting in Step 1 of the NSR applicability test. For the reasons cited in this section, many projects will be unaffected by this change. However, in cases where allowing project netting theoretically could cause a permit to not trigger major NSR, it is possible, and perhaps very likely, that owner or operator of the source would choose to forego the project simply to avoid the expense and time necessary with major NSR. Also, it should be noted that under no scenario would the proposed project netting rule change cause a new increase to the environment that exceeds the significant emissions threshold   i. e., the DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute 13 triggering of major NSR would be entirely a result of past changes at the source that previously avoided major NSR.

IV. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS This document illustrates the serious limitations on EPA's current ability to quantify the environmental impact of these proposed regulations. Nonetheless, we expect that these reforms will have little, if any, environmentally impact compared to the current program. Through our rule proposal, we will seek comment and data to enable a more quantitative assessment of the rule impacts. We will update this environmental analysis to incorporate new information and our final conclusions upon finalizing the rule.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 217 (Monday, November 9, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71290-71292]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0899; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-16]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Class D Airspace; Gray AAF (Joint Base
Lewis-McChord), WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class D airspace at Gray
AAF (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), Fort Lewis/Tacoma, WA. After a review
of the airspace, the FAA found it necessary to amend the existing
airspace for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at this airport. This proposal would also remove a reference
to the McChord VORTAC from the legal description, update the airport
name and city, and amend the geographical coordinates for the airport
to match the FAA's database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0899; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-16, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify the Class D airspace to support IFR operations at
Gray AAF (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), Fort Lewis/Tacoma, WA.

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 and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0899;
Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-16''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the 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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the lateral dimensions of the
Class D airspace. The FAA initiated a review of the assigned airspace
and drafted the subsequent proposal for modification due to two
actions. The FAA decommissioned the McChord VORTAC because the U.S. Air
Force was no longer going to maintain the NAVAID. As a result of the
decommissioning, the FAA was required to redefine airspace that uses
the VORTAC as a reference and remove the references from the associated
airspace descriptions. The Class D airspace had not been examined in
the previous two years, as required by FAA Orders.
    The Class D airspace lateral boundary would be established within a
4 mile radius of the airport instead of a 4.3 mile radius. The
additional airspace was no longer needed.
    In addition, the name and city of the airport and the geographical
coordinates for Gray AAF (Joint Base Lewis-McChord) would be updated to
match the FAA's National Airspace System Resource (NASR) database.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
D airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21,
2020, and effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM WA D Fort Lewis/Tacoma, WA (Amend)

Gray AAF (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]04'45'' N, long. 122[deg]34'51'' W)

McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]08'17'' N, long. 122[deg]28'35'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,800 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Gray AAF, excluding the
portions within the McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord) Class D
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 29, 2020.
Byron Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-24581 Filed 11-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P