[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61989]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24619]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0760; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Restricted Areas R-4105A and R-4105B; No Man's Land
Island, MA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes restricted areas R-4105A and R-4105B, No
Man's Land Island, MA. The Air National Guard and U.S. Air Force
informed the FAA that they no longer have a requirement for these
areas. Management of the land has been transferred to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, November 17, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    No Man's Land Island, located approximately 3 NM south of Martha's
Vineyard, MA, has been used by the military as a gunnery and bombing
range dating back to 1943. It was used for this purpose until 1996. In
1998, management of the Island was transferred by the military to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Island was designated a National
Wildlife Refuge.
    Since restricted areas R-4105A and R-4105B, that overlie the
Island, are no longer utilized, the Air National Guard reviewed its
future plans and requirements and determined that no requirement
remains for the airspace.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 73 by removing restricted areas R-4105A and R-4105B, No Man's Land
Island, MA. The Air National Guard and the U.S. Air Force notified the
FAA that they no longer require these restricted areas and requested
that the airspace be returned to the National Airspace System.
    Because this action removes restricted airspace that is no longer
needed for military purposes and returns the airspace to the National
Airspace System, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) is unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this action only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it returns restricted airspace that is no longer needed by the
military to the National Airspace System.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311c. This action returns restricted airspace to the National
Airspace System. It is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.41  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.41 is amended as follows:
* * * * *
0
1. R-4105A No Man's Land Island, MA [Removed]
0
2. R-4105B No Man's Land Island, MA [Removed]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 8, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-24619 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 28044]
[DOCID:fr12jn09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-57-000]

Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC, Complainant v. New York
Independent System Operator, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

June 5, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 2, 2009, Astoria gas Turbine Power LLC
(NRG) filed a complaint against the New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. (NYISO) pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act
regarding NYISO's failure to place the Astoria Repowering Project into
the 2009 Class Year Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment,
necessary to allow the project to interconnect with the NYISO
transmission system.
    NRG certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
NYISO.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
    For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13790 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44244-44246]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15862]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8161; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-018-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; REIMS AVIATION S.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain REIMS AVIATION S.A. Model F406 airplanes. This proposed AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as cracks found in the horizontal stabilizer rear
attach structure and the vertical fin rear spar attach structure. We
are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact ASI
Aviation,

A[eacute]rodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, France; telephone: +33
3 26 48 46 84; fax: +33 3 26 49 18 57; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://asi-aviation.fr/page-Accueil.html. You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2016-
8161; 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 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-8161;
Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-018-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://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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2016-0101, dated May 25, 2016 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Fatigue cracks and holes elongation were found on horizontal
stabilizer fittings on F406 aeroplanes having accumulated more than
2 500 flight hours (FH).
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer fittings.
    To initially address this issue, DGAC France published AD 2001-
161 to require repetitive visual inspections of the fittings, and,
dependings on findings, replacement with a serviceable part.
    Since that AD was issued, during maintenance, cracks were found
on a slice plate of horizontal stabilizer fittings. Consequently,
ASI Aviation issued Service Bulletin (SB) CAB01-5 Revision 2 to
provide instructions for additional eddy-current non-destructive
test (NDT) inspections.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD 2001-161, which is superseded, and
requires the additional NDT inspections.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8161.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    ASI Aviation has issued Service Bulletin CAB01-5 Rev 2, dated
December 3, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
inspecting the horizontal stabilizer rear attach structure and the
vertical fin rear spar attach structure for cracks and oversized bolt
holes and making all necessary repairs and replacements. 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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 7 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 20.5 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic inspections requirements of this
proposed AD (18 work-hours to remove the horizontal stabilizer to gain
access for the inspection and 2.5 work-hours to do the inspection). The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
inspection on U.S. operators to be $12,197.50, or $1,742.50 per
product.
    We estimate that it would take about 25 work-hours per product to
reinstall the horizontal stabilizer after doing the proposed inspection
and any proposed necessary repairs or replacements. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed action on U.S. operators
to be $14,875, or $2,125 per product.
    In addition, we estimate any proposed necessary corrective actions
as follows:

--Installing Service Kit SKRA406-11--Rev. 2 would take about 3 work-
hours and require parts costing $65, for a cost of $320 per product. We
have no way of determining the number of products that may need this
action.
--Installing Service Kit SK406-137 (which superseded Service Kit
SKRA406-12--Rev. 2) would take about 20 work-hours and require parts
costing $2,000, for a cost of $3,800 per product. We have no way of
determining the number of products that may need this action.
--Installing Service Kit SKRA406-13--Rev. 2 would take about 8 work-
hours and require parts costing $1,800, for a cost of $2,480 per
product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may
need this action.

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 AD:

REIMS AVIATION S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2016-8161; Directorate
Identifier 2016-CE-018-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to REIMS AVIATION S.A. F406 airplanes, serial
numbers F406-0001 through F406-0098, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks found in
the horizontal stabilizer rear attach structure and the vertical fin
rear spar attach structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent
structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer and/or the vertical
fin rear spar attach structure, which could result in damage to the
airplane and loss of control.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) At whichever of the compliance times specified in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD that occurs the latest after the
effective date of this AD, and repetitively thereafter every 2,400
hours time-in-service (TIS), do a visual and non-destructive test
(NDT) inspection of the horizontal stabilizer splice plate assembly,
part number (P/N) 6032183-1 or P/N 406-5518-32183-100 (as
applicable), and the attach structure assembly P/N 6031210-1. Do the
inspections following the Accomplishment Instructions in ASI
Aviation Service Bulletin CAB01-5 Rev 2, dated December 3, 2015.
    (i) Before accumulating 2,500 hours TIS; or
    (ii) Within the next 100 hours TIS; or
    (iii) At the next 600-hour inspection.
    (2) If, during any inspection as required by paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, any oversized bolt hole or crack is detected on the
horizontal stabilizer splice plate assembly or attach structure
assembly, before further flight, repair or replace the affected part
with a serviceable part following the Accomplishment Instructions in
ASI Aviation Service Bulletin CAB01-5 Rev 2, dated December 3, 2015.
After taking the necessary corrective action, continue with the
repetitive inspection specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2016-0101, dated 25 May 25, 2016, and ASI Aviation Service Kit
SKRA40611-Rev. 2, dated December 3, 2015, ASI Service Kit SK406-137,
dated December 3, 2015 (which superseded ASI Aviation Service Kit
SKRA406-12-Rev. 2, dated December 3, 2015), and ASI Aviation Service
Kit SKRA406-13-Rev. 2, dated December 3, 2015, for related
information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2016-8161. For service information related to this AD, contact ASI
Aviation, A[eacute]rodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, France;
telephone: +33 3 26 48 46 84; fax: +33 3 26 49 18 57; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://asi-aviation.fr/page-Accueil.html. You may review this referenced service information at
the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 28, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-15862 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60789-60791]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0952; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-16]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of E Airspace; Flippin, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marion County Regional
Airport, Flippin, AR, and Baxter County Airport, Mountain Home, AR,
which is contained within the Flippin, AR, airspace legal description.
The FAA is proposing this action as the result of the decommissioning
of the Flippin VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which
provided navigation information for the instrument

procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational
Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the Marion County
Regional Airport and name of Baxter County Airport would also be
updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0952; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-16, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://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 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 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 amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Marion County Regional Airport, Flippin, AR, and Baxter
County Airport, Mountain Home, AR, to support instrument flight rule
operations at these airports.

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. Commenters 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-2018-0952/
Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-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 http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://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 Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C 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:
    Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Marion County Regional Airport, Flippin, AR, to within a
6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius); removing the
Flippin VOR/DME from the airspace legal description; removing the
extension east of the airport; removing the city associated with the
airport from the airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order
7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updating the
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Baxter County Airport (previously Baxter County
Regional Airport), Mountain Home, AR, by removing the extension south
of the airport associated with the Flippin VOR/DME; removing the city
associated with the airport from the airspace legal description to
comply with FAA Order 7400.2L; and updating the name of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Flippin VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

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 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW AR E5 Flippin, AR [Amended]

Marion County Regional Airport, AR
    (Lat. 36[deg]17'27'' N, long. 92[deg]35'25'' W)
Baxter County Airport, AR
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'08'' N, long. 92[deg]28'14'' W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Marion County Regional Airport and
within a 6.5-mile radius of Baxter County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 19, 2018.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-25706 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 20)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5007-5009]
[DOCID:fr01fe10-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0710; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-16]

Establishment of Class D and E Airspace; Panama City, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D and E airspace at
Panama City, FL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) for the new Northwest Florida-Panama City International
Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of
instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-

647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-
2009-0710; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-16, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Airspace Specialist,
Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify
both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address
listed above. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2009-0710; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-
16.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will
be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
publications/airspace_amendments/. Additionally, any person may obtain
a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-
400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for
this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-
9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the
application procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class D and E airspace at
Panama City, FL. Class D airspace extending upward from the surface to
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of the Northwest Florida-Panama
City International Airport, and Class E airspace extending from 700
feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of the airport is
necessary for the safety and management of SIAPs at the new Northwest
Florida-Panama City International Airport. There will be separate
rulemaking action removing the existing airspace surrounding the old
Panama City-Bay County Airport prior to closing the airport.
    Designations for Class D and E airspace areas are published in
Paragraph 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9T, signed
August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish Class D and E airspace at
Panama City, FL.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 will continue to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Panama City, FL [New]

Northwest Florida-Panama City International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]21'28'' N., long. 85[deg]47'56'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and
including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of the Northwest
Florida-Panama City International Airport. This Class D airspace
area is effective during specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Panama City, FL [New]

Northwest Florida-Panama City International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]21'28'' N., long. 85[deg]47'56'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of the Earth within a 7.2-mile radius of the Northwest Florida-
Panama City International Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 21, 2010.
Michael Vermuth,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-2005 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Cheyenne International, LLC hereby submits a request for an extension of the comment period for the proposed Deeming Rule. See attached file.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 36817]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2013-24]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before July 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
1342 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keira Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 2013.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-1342
    Petitioner: North American Air Charter
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 135.324
    Description of Relief Sought: North American seeks relief to allow
its crewmembers to receive credit for previous training received from
another part 142 training facility for specific ground and flight
training.
[FR Doc. 2013-14582 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 7)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1532-1535]
[DOCID:fr11ja11-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0718; FRL-9250-1]

Determinations of Attainment by the Applicable Attainment Date
for the Hayden, Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas PM10
Nonattainment Areas, Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making final determinations that the Hayden, Nogales,
and Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment areas in Arizona attained the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten
micrometers (PM10) by their applicable attainment dates of
December 31, 1994. On the basis of these determinations, EPA concludes
that these three ``moderate'' nonattainment areas are not subject to
reclassification by operation of law to ``serious.'' EPA is not
finalizing determinations with respect to the air quality in these
areas subsequent to their 1994 attainment dates.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on February 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0718 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax at telephone number: (415)
947-4192; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region
IX address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:

Table of Contents

I. Context for Today's Actions
II. Summary of Proposed Actions
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Context for Today's Actions

    On November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67220), we published a direct final rule
that made certain determinations we are making in this document. On
November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67303), we also published a corresponding
proposed rule in the event that we received adverse comment leading us
to withdraw the direct final rule. In our direct final rule, we
indicated that we would withdraw the direct final rule if we received
adverse comments, and address public comments in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule. On November 3, 2010, we received
adverse comments, and subsequently withdrew the direct final rule (75
FR 72964, November 29, 2010). Today, we take final action based on our
November 2, 2010 proposed rule and our consideration of the public
comments received.

II. Summary of Proposed Actions

    In our November 2, 2010 proposed rule, we proposed to determine,
pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, that three Arizona
``moderate'' PM10 nonattainment areas (Hayden, Nogales, and
Paul Spur/Douglas) had attained the PM10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date (December 31, 1994), and that, based on
these proposed determinations, we concluded that none of these areas is
subject to reclassification to serious by operation of law. We also
proposed to find that more recent data for 2007-2009 show none of the
areas is currently attaining the standard. More detailed information is
contained in the November 2 direct final rule, which is summarized in
the paragraphs that follow.
    First, our direct final rule described the relevant NAAQS, 150
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), 24-hour average, against
which monitored ambient concentrations of PM10 in the three
subject areas (Hayden,\1\ Nogales,\2\

and Paul Spur/Douglas \3\) are to be compared in evaluating whether the
areas attained the standard. Next, we described the designations and
classifications of these three areas, all of which are classified as
``moderate'' nonattainment with an applicable attainment date of
December 31, 1994 under CAA section 188(c). Also, we discussed the
status of the various air quality plans submitted by the State of
Arizona to address moderate area PM10 requirements in the
three subject areas (Hayden, Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Hayden planning area straddles Gila and Pinal counties
at the confluence of the Gila and San Pedro rivers in east central
Arizona. The nonattainment area covers roughly 700 square miles of
mountainous terrain. Cities and towns within this area include
Kearney (population roughly 2,800), Hayden (population roughly 800),
and Winkelman (population roughly 400).
    \2\ The Nogales planning area covers approximately 70 square
miles along the border with Mexico within Santa Cruz County. The
only significant population center in this area is the city of
Nogales with a population of roughly 21,000. The population of
Nogales, Mexico, which lies just across the border from Nogales,
Arizona is roughly 160,000.
    \3\ The Paul Spur/Douglas planning area covers approximately 220
square miles along the border with Mexico within Cochise County.
Cities and towns within this area include Douglas (population
roughly 20,000) and Pirtleville (population roughly 1,500). The
population of Agua Prieta, Mexico, which lies just across the border
from Douglas is roughly 70,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our direct final rule, we also described how EPA makes
attainment determinations. As explained therein, the 24-hour
PM10 standard is attained when the expected number of days
per calendar year with a 24-hour concentration in excess of the
standard (referred to herein as an ``exceedance''), as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less than
one.\4\ See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. Generally, EPA
determines whether an area's air quality is meeting the PM10
NAAQS based upon complete (minimum of 75 percent of scheduled
PM10 samples recorded in each quarter), quality-assured data
gathered at established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS)
and national air monitoring stations (NAMS) in the nonattainment area
and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. Attainment
of the 24-hour PM10 standard is determined by calculating
the expected number of exceedances of the standard in a year. The 24-
hour PM10 standard is attained when the expected number of
exceedances averaged over a three-year period is less than or equal to
one at each monitoring site within the nonattainment area. Generally,
three consecutive years of air quality data are required to show
attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard. See 40 CFR part 50
and appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard (150 [micro]g/m\3\) after rounding to
the nearest 10 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in 5 or greater
are to be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [micro]g/m\3\
would not be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150
[micro]g/m\3\ whereas a recorded value of 155 [micro]g/m\3\ would be
an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 [micro]g/m\3\. See 40
CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the available monitoring data for the 1992-1994 period
collected in the three subject Arizona nonattainment areas (Hayden,
Nogales,\5\ and Paul Spur/Douglas) and the application of the
PM10 NAAQS attainment criteria described above, we proposed
to determine that all three areas attained the PM10 NAAQS by
the December 31, 1994 attainment date for ``moderate'' areas, and thus,
are not subject to reclassification to ``serious'' by operation of law
under CAA section 188(b)(2). In addition, we proposed to find that,
although the three areas attained the standard by the applicable
attainment date, none appears to be currently attaining based on the
most recent available data, although Hayden appears likely to attain in
the near future if current trends continue. We indicated that we plan
to address the PM10 needs for Nogales and Paul Spur/Douglas
areas over the next few years. In today's action, EPA is not finalizing
any of the proposed determinations with respect to recent data.
Instead, we plan to further assess recent data, including data
available for 2010 and 2011, in the context of future rulemaking
actions on the submitted, but not yet approved, air quality plans for
these areas. Section 188(b)(2) obligates EPA to make a determination
only as to whether these areas have attained by their applicable 1994
attainment dates, and we are not required by that section to make
determinations regarding subsequent time periods. Other portions of the
Clean Air Act authorize EPA to address current air quality issues as
needed through separate statutory authority and mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Table 2 (``Summary of PM10 Monitoring Data,
Nogales Nonattainment Area, 1992-1994''), as published in our
November 2, 2010 direct final rule, contains a publisher's error
that erroneously combines certain columns and rows and thereby
causes a mismatch between concentrations and the corresponding years
in which they were monitored. The correct values for the highest 24-
hour PM10 concentrations ([micro]g/m\3\) are 153 in 1992,
119 for 1993, and 116 for 1994 from the Nogales Post Office monitor.
Also, the maximum concentrations shown for the other three monitors
located in Nogales were collected in 1994, not 1993. These errors do
not appear in the version of the direct final rule that was signed
by the EPA Region IX Regional Administrator. In any event, these
errors would not have affected the outcome of our attainment
determinations since none of the values for any of the years
exceeded 154 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see our November 2, 2010 direct final rule for more
information about our proposal of the same date.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    As noted previously, we published a proposed rule (75 FR 67303) on
November 2, 2010. We received comments from WildEarth Guardians
(``WildEarth''), dated November 3, 2010, challenging EPA's
interpretation of CAA section 188(b)(2) that limits reclassifications
by operation of law to the air quality conditions as of the applicable
attainment date.
    Comment: WildEarth contends that section 188(b)(2) of the Clean Air
Act does not state that the EPA is limited only to considering air
quality data up until the attainment date when it makes its finding,
but rather requires any moderate nonattainment area that fails to
attain ``after the applicable attainment date'' to be reclassified to
``serious'' regardless of whether EPA makes a timely finding.
    WildEarth finds further support for its interpretation by noting
that CAA section 188(b)(2) uses both past-tense and present-tense
wording with regards to the context of EPA's assessment of an area's
attainment status. Specifically, the statute states that EPA's finding
``shall determine whether the area attained * * *'' (emphasis added),
but then states ``If the Administrator finds that any Moderate Area is
not in attainment * * *'' (emphasis added). WildEarth contends that use
of both the past-tense and present-tense in this context indicates
that, although the Clean Air Act intended EPA to assess an area's
attainment status based on whether it attained the NAAQS by the
attainment date, it also required that a moderate nonattainment area be
reclassified to ``serious'' if it ``is not in attainment'' at the time
the EPA makes its finding. If EPA's assessment were to be limited only
to whether an area ``attained'' in the past, WildEarth contends that it
would render meaningless the Clean Air Act's substantive requirement
that a moderate area be bumped up to ``serious'' if it ``is not in
attainment'' when EPA makes its finding. WildEarth contends that, as
such, EPA's interpretation reads a substantive provision out of the
Clean Air Act.
    Response: First, we note that WildEarth does not object to any
aspect of EPA's proposed rulemaking other than the interpretation as to
the legal consequences that they contend would flow from finalizing
determinations that, although the three areas attained by their
applicable 1994 attainment dates, sixteen years later they are not
currently in attainment. First, we note that in today's rulemaking EPA
is not finalizing any proposed determinations with respect to the air
quality in these areas subsequent to the areas' applicable dates. Nor
does section 188(b)(2) impose such an obligation. Pursuant to section

188(b)(2), EPA is finalizing here its determinations that the areas
attained the standard ``by that [applicable attainment] date.'' Section
188(b)(2) does not impose upon EPA any obligation to make a final
determination of attainment except with respect to an area's applicable
attainment date.
    Thus, it is not necessary for the purposes of our final actions
here, which are limited to determinations of attainment as of the
areas' applicable attainment dates, to respond to WildEarth's
assertions regarding the legal consequences of determinations regarding
air quality in subsequent decades. Nevertheless, we note our
disagreement with WildEarth's interpretation that CAA section 188(b)(2)
would require reclassification of any moderate PM10
nonattainment area if EPA were to make a final determination that the
area was not attaining after the applicable attainment date, regardless
of the air quality conditions as of the applicable attainment date
itself.
    EPA's interpretation of section 188(b)(2) as requiring and
authorizing reclassification to serious based only on air quality
conditions as of the applicable attainment date, and not thereafter, is
confirmed by a reading of that section in its entirety:

    Within 6 months following the applicable attainment date for a
PM-10 nonattainment area, the Administrator shall determine whether
the area attained the standard by that date. If the Administrator
finds that any Moderate Area is not in attainment after the
applicable attainment date--
    (A) The area shall be reclassified by operation of law as a
Serious Area; and
    (B) the Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal
Register no later than 6 months following the attainment date,
identifying the area as having failed to attain and identifying the
reclassification described under subparagraph (A).

    While the second sentence of section 188(b)(2) contains the
language quoted by WildEarth (``any Moderate Area is not in attainment
after the applicable attainment date''), it is clear that in the
context of the first sentence of the provision, which is the sentence
that establishes the duty to make an attainment determination, that the
duty is to ``determine whether the area attained the standard by that
date [referring to the phrase ``applicable attainment date'' in the
opening clause of the first sentence].'' Thus, EPA's duty is to
determine whether the area attained by its attainment date and the
language in the second sentence regarding a finding after the
attainment date may reasonably be interpreted as referring to the date
the finding is made, which would necessarily be after the attainment
date, not to the date used in the determination as the benchmark for
determining attainment.
    Further, the second sentence of CAA section 188(b)(2), i.e., the
one that includes the language cited by WildEarth (``any Moderate Area
is not in attainment after the applicable attainment date''), includes
two subparagraphs, one of which provides for reclassification of a
moderate area to serious by operation of law and another that refers to
publication of a notice in the Federal Register six months after the
attainment date, identifying the area ``as having failed to attain''
that clearly relates back to the earlier, legally relevant attainment
date (in this case, December 31, 1994). Thus, whether EPA's obligation
under CAA section 188(b)(2) is viewed in its entirety, or whether the
second sentence of CAA section 188(b)(2) is viewed in isolation, it is
clear that the question of whether an area must be reclassified is
considered along with the question of whether an area has achieved
attainment by the attainment date.\6\ To accept WildEarth's
interpretation would be to ignore the reference to a specific point in
time (``no later than 6 months following the attainment date'') for
publishing a notice in subparagraph (B) of CAA section 188(b)(2) in
identifying the appropriate benchmark for reclassifying moderate areas
to serious under subparagraph (A).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA's sole obligation under CAA section 188(b)(2) is to
determine whether the three Arizona areas attained the
PM10 standard by the applicable attainment date, and
while the statute requires EPA to make this determination within six
months of the applicable attainment date, the applicable attainment
date (in this case, December 31, 1994) remains the same no matter
when EPA actually makes the determination. EPA was not obligated in
the November 2, 2010 proposed rule, nor in this final rule, to
determine whether the areas are attaining the standard at the
present time. As stated above, EPA is not here finalizing any
determinations as to the current air quality in the area, but is
merely noting what more recent monitoring data suggest about the
current air quality area quality in these areas, sixteen years after
the 1994 attainment dates that are the subject of the final
rulemaking here. We included the observations about current air
quality in our proposed rule because we believe that such
observations, and the related discussion of future Agency actions,
is of as much public interest, if not more, as are the
determinations of the air quality conditions that occurred sixteen
years ago.
    \7\ While EPA believes that the plain language of section
188(b)(2) supports EPA's interpretation that reclassifications to
``serious'' are to be based only on air quality conditions as of the
applicable attainment date, and not thereafter, EPA believes that,
to the extent section 188(b)(2) is ambiguous, EPA's interpretation
is reasonable in that it is consistent with the statutory scheme for
SIP revisions upon findings of failure to attain under subpart 1 and
for mandatory reclassifications under subparts 2 and 3 for ozone and
carbon monoxide areas. See CAA sections 179(c) and (d), 181(b)(2)
and 186(b)(2) and compare the language from these sections to
section 188(b)(2). While the language for such SIP revisions under
subpart 1 and for reclassifications for ozone and carbon monoxide
areas under subparts 2 and 3 uses slightly different language to
link SIP revisions and reclassifications solely to air quality ``as
of the attainment date'' than the language for reclassification of
PM10 areas under subpart 4, we find no reason that
Congress would have established a different scheme for
PM10 areas under subpart 4 than generally applicable
under subpart 1 or for ozone or carbon monoxide areas under subparts
2 and 3. For further explanation of EPA's interpretation of
reclassification under the Clean Air Act, see the responses to
comments in EPA's final Determination of Attainment of 1-hour Ozone
Standard as of November 15, 1993 for the Birmingham, AL Marginal
Ozone Nonattainment Area (67 FR 67113, November 4, 2002). To the
extent relevant here, EPA reaffirms and incorporates by reference
the responses to comments contained in our November 4, 2002 final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter's interpretation of section 188(b)(2) fails to harmonize
the second sentence of the section with the first sentence and with the
sentences that follow. Indeed, it could more plausibly be argued that
the second sentence adds a cumulative condition for reclassification--
that is, an area will be reclassified if and only it fails to attain by
its attainment date and ``if the Administrator finds [the area] is not
in attainment after the applicable attainment date.'' Contrary to
commenter's contention, EPA does not believe that Congress intended for
the language regarding determining attainment as of the attainment date
not to apply when an attainment determination occurs more than six
months after the attainment date. The second sentence of section
188(b)(2) does not somehow override the language of the first sentence
and require reclassification if an area slips back into nonattainment
after its attainment date. EPA's reading is consistent with the
language of section 188(b)(2) and with other provisions of the Clean
Air Act, as well as with its structure and purpose. EPA believes that
other parts of the Act, notably section 110(k)(5), provide the means to
address nonattainment that occurs after an area's attainment date.
Contrary to commenter's contention, EPA's reading does not
``nullif[y]'' applicable text. Rather, EPA is properly reading
188(b)(2) as requiring EPA to determine whether an area has attained by
its attainment date, with reclassification as a consequence for areas
that fail to do so.
    In the present case, the air quality data from the years 1992-1994
are the relevant data for determining whether the three Arizona areas
must be reclassified to serious because their applicable attainment
date is December 31, 1994, and because we have

determined that the areas did in fact attain by the applicable
attainment date, they are not subject to reclassification to serious by
operation of law under CAA section 188(b)(2).
    This does not mean that the Clean Air Act provides no means to
address NAAQS violations in areas that had initially attained the
standard by the applicable attainment date but then experience
subsequent violations years after the applicable attainment date. For
example, EPA could issue a ``SIP call'' under CAA section 110(k)(5) if
EPA were to determine that the SIP is ``substantially inadequate'' to
attain the PM10 NAAQS in areas where violations of the
PM10 NAAQS occur after the applicable attainment date. Such
SIP calls require the State to revise the SIP as necessary to correct
the inadequacies. The SIP call, unlike reclassification, is capable of
addressing and correcting the specific circumstances causing
nonattainment sixteen years after the applicable attainment date. While
EPA has no current plans to issue SIP calls for any of the three
subject Arizona moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, EPA is
working with the State of Arizona to update the state's earlier-
submitted, but not yet EPA-approved air quality plans. EPA intends to
ensure that the plans meet all applicable requirements for moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas through both cooperative efforts
with the State and through subsequent EPA rulemaking actions on the
updated plans.

IV. Final Action

    EPA has reviewed the comments that have been submitted, and
concluded that none of them convince us to change our action as
proposed on November 2, 2010 with respect to determinations of
attainment as of the applicable attainment date. Thus, under section
188(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, and based on sufficient, quality-
assured data, we take final action to determine that the Hayden,
Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 nonattainment areas
attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, December 31, 1994. On the basis of this determination, EPA
concludes that these three ``moderate'' nonattainment areas are not
subject to reclassification to ``serious'' by operation of law.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action merely make determinations based on air quality data
and does not impose any additional Federal requirements. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject
to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 14, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Particulate matter, Wilderness areas.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 30, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-221 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P