[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 31401]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2003-16666]

Petition for Special Approval of Alternate Standard

    In accordance with Part 238 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letters dated
January 30 and 31, 2014, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an
extension of its Special Approval of alternate standard for certain
requirements of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR Part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2003-16666.
    Amtrak seeks approval to continue using an alternate standard to
comply with 49 CFR 238. 311, Single car test. This section requires
single car air brake tests to be performed in accordance with either
American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Standard SS-M-005-98,
``Code of Tests for Passenger Car Equipment Using Single Car Testing
Device,'' published March 1998, or with an alternative procedure
approved by FRA pursuant to 49 CFR 238.21, Special approval procedure.
In 2003, Amtrak requested and received approval from FRA for an
alternate standard for single car air brake tests on Talgo train sets
operated by Amtrak. This approval was renewed by FRA for 5 years in
2009. Amtrak states that while Talgo brake equipment can receive the
single car test using the APTA standard, the alternate standard allows
a semipermanently coupled train set to remain coupled during testing.
Amtrak also indicates that using the APTA standard procedure on shorter
length cars combined with reduced brake pipe volume would produce air
flow rates not compatible with the APTA standard.
    Amtrak supplied a copy of the alternate Talgo standard, a statement
affirming that Amtrak served a copy of the petition to a designated
representative of its employees and the name and address of the person
served as required by 49 CFR 238.21(b)(4). These documents are
available for inspection in the docket for this proceeding.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by July 2, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2014.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-12621 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25415-25417]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0555; Product Identifier 2010-SW-047-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to revise Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-05-06
for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 and MBB-BK 117C-2
helicopters. AD 2014-05-06 requires repetitive inspections of the
flight-control bearings, replacing any loose bearings with airworthy
flight-control bearings, and installing bushings and washers. This
proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2014-05-06 but would
remove the repetitive inspections. The actions of this proposed AD are
intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-2013-
0555; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2010-0058, dated March 30, 2010, for
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH)
Model EC135, EC635, and MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters. EASA advises that
during an inspection of an MBB-BK117 C-2, ``bearings were detected
which had not been correctly fixed.'' EASA advises that this condition,
if not detected and corrected, may cause the affected control lever to
shift in the axial direction and contact the helicopter structure,
possibly resulting in reduced helicopter control. As some bearings on
the EC135 and MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopter are installed with the same
procedure, they are equally affected by the possibility of the unsafe
condition, EASA advises.
    As a result, we published AD 2014-05-06 (79 FR 13196, March 10,
2014), which requires repetitively inspecting the flight-control
bearings, replacing any loose bearings with an airworthy flight-control
bearing, and installing bushings and washers.

Actions Since AD 2014-05-06 Was Issued

    Since we published AD 2014-05-06, EASA issued AD No. 2010-0058R1,
dated April 7, 2017, to remove the repetitive inspections required by
EASA AD No. 2010-0058. EASA advises that a review of data and feedback
from in-service helicopters determined the Airbus Helicopters
modification removes the need for repetitive inspections. We have made
a similar determination and are issuing this proposed AD to remove the
repetitive inspections required by AD 2014-05-06.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Eurocopter issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EC135-67A-019,
Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009, for Model EC135-series
helicopters, and ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February
8, 2010, for Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters. This service information
specifies a repetitive inspection of the affected bearings and
retrofitting bushings on the levers to prevent movement of the
bearings.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB EC135-67A-019 for Model EC135-
series helicopters and ASB MBB-BK117C-2-67A-010 for Model MBB-BK 117C-2
helicopters, both Revision 4 and both dated April 3, 2017. This service
information removes the repetitive inspections and retains the
procedures for retrofitting the bushings on the levers to prevent
movement of the bearings. Revision 3 of this service information is
attached as an appendix to Revision 4.

Proposed AD Requirements

    For EC135 helicopters, this proposed AD would require within 100
hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next annual inspection, whichever
occurs first, modifying the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) guidance
units and cyclic shaft by installing bushings and washers to prevent
shifting in the axial direction.
    For MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters, this proposed AD would require
within 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs
first, modifying the LH and RH guidance units and the lateral control
lever by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the
bearings in the axial direction.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    Differences between this AD and the EASA AD are:
     The EASA AD is applicable to EC 635-series helicopters,
whereas this proposed AD would not because these model helicopters have
no U.S. type certificate.
     The EASA AD requires the modification within the next 12
months after April 13, 2010. This proposed AD would require the
modification within 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection,
whichever occurs first.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 295 Model EC135-series helicopters
and 117 Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor
costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect
the following costs:
     For EC135 helicopters, completing the required
modification would require about 32 work-hours and parts would cost
about $312, for a total cost of $3,032 per helicopter and $894,400 for
the U.S. fleet.
     For MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters, completing the required
modification would require about 32 work-hours and parts would cost
about $396, for a total cost of $3,116 per helicopter and $364,572 for
the U.S. fleet.

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, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH): Docket No. FAA-2013-0555; Product Identifier
2010-SW-047-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Airbus Helicopters Deutschland
GmbH (previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) helicopters,
certificated in any category:
    (1) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters, serial
number (S/N) 0005 through 00829, with a tail rotor control lever,
part number (P/N) L672M2802205 or L672M1012212; cyclic control
lever, P/N L671M1005250; collective control lever assembly, P/N
L671M2020108; or collective control plate, P/N L671M5040207;
installed, and
    (2) Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters, S/N 9004 through 9310, with
a tail rotor control lever assembly, P/N B672M1007101 or
B672M1807101; tail rotor control lever, P/N

B672M1002202 or L672M2802205; or lateral control lever assembly, P/N
B670M1008101, installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as incorrectly installed
flight control bearings. This condition could cause the affected
control lever to shift and contact the helicopter structure,
resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 31, 2018.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

 (e) Required Actions

    (1) For Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters:
Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next
annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the left-hand (LH)
and right-hand (RH) guidance units and the cyclic shaft by
installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings
in the axial direction as follows:
    (i) Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install a
bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the bearing block and the lever
of the LH guidance unit as depicted in Detail A of Figure 5 of
Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated
December 16, 2009 (EC135 ASB).
    (ii) For helicopters without a yaw brake, remove and disassemble
the RH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260,
between the bearing block and the lever as depicted in Detail B of
Figure 5 of EC135 ASB.
    (iii) Remove and disassemble the cyclic shaft and install a
washer, P/N L671M10055260, between the bearing block and the lever
as depicted in Detail C of Figure 6 of EC135 ASB.
    (iv) Remove the collective control rod from the bellcrank and
install a washer, P/N L221M1042208, on each side of the collective
control rod and bellcrank as depicted in Detail D of Figure 6 of
EC135 ASB.
    (2) For Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters: Within the next 100
hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first,
modify the LH and RH guidance units and the lateral control lever by
installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings
in the axial direction as follows:
    (i) Remove and disassemble the RH guidance unit and install a
bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as
depicted in Detail B of Figure 4 of Eurocopter Alert Service
Bulletin MBB BK117C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010
(BK117 ASB). Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install
a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as
depicted in Detail C of Figure 4 of BK117 ASB.
    (ii) Remove the lateral control lever and install new bushings
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs
3.C(9)(a) through 3.C(9)(g) of BK117 ASB.
    (iii) Identify the modified lever assembly by writing ``MBB
BK117C-2-67A-010'' on the lever with permanent marking pen and
protect with a single layer of lacquer (CM 421 or equivalent).
    (iv) Apply corrosion preventive paste (CM518 or equivalent) on
the shank of the screws and install airworthy parts as depicted in
Figure 5 of BK117 ASB.

(f) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196,
March 10, 2014).

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management
Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019,
Revision 4, dated April 3, 2017, and Alert Service Bulletin MBB-
BK117C-2-67A-010, Revision 4, dated April 3, 2017, which are not
incorporated by reference, contain additional information about this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
(972) 641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html.
You may review service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2010-0058R1, dated April 7, 2017. You
may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
in the AD Docket.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710, Main Rotor
Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 11, 2018.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11447 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20737-20740]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In March
2008, there were five applications approved. This notice also includes
information on four applications, approved in February 2008,
inadvertently left off the February 2008 notice. Additionally, 10
approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of

1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is published pursuant to
paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority,
Chattanooga, Tennessee.
    Application Number: 08-04-C-00-CHA.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $2,413,001.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Aircraft rescue and firefighting station.
    Taxiway H, phases I and II.
    Runway 15/33 rehabilitation.
    Taxiway A north.
    New electrical vault.
    Access control system upgrade.
    Replace runway weather information system.
    Repair commercial service ramp.
    Obstruction clearing for runway 2.
    Runway 2/20 crack seal repair.
    Master plan.
    Design, relocation, and reconstruction of taxiways A, B, and C.
    West airfield apron.
    Ground support equipment.
    PFC application development.
    PFC program administration.
    Decision Date: February 27, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Wills, Memphis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Mohave, Bullhead City, Arizona.
    Application Number: 08-01-C-00-IFP.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $2.00.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $744,600.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCS: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Airport master plan, phases I and II.
    Terminal building rehabilitation.
    Runway 16/34 rehabilitation.
    Runway safety area improvements--runway 16.
    Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting protective clothing.
    Air traffic control tower radio equipment.
    Rehabilitate access road and parking lot.
    Rehabilitate aircraft parking apron.
    Construct taxiway D extension.
    Acquire high-speed sweeper.
    Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
    Construct aircraft rescue and firefighting station.
    Environmental assessment for land acquisition.
    Install emergency generator.
    Improve airport drainage.
    PFC administrative costs.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection: Extend runway
16/34 (design only).
    Decision Date: February 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Darlene Williams, Los Angeles
Airports District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Chemung, Elmira, New York.
    Application Number: 08-02-C-00-ELM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $641,046.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2010.
    Classes of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: On demand
commercial operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that each approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Elmira-Corning Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Rehabilitate runway 6/24.
    Design Echo apron expansion.
    Design Alpha apron expansion.
    Environmental assessments.
    PFC application.
    Design commercial apron rehabilitation.
    Construct Alpha apron rehabilitation.
    Access road and drainage improvement.
    Construct commercial apron rehabilitation.
    Construct Echo apron expansion.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection:
    Design parallel taxiway A and taxiway L.
    Acquire easement for runway 10/28 runway protection zone.
    Acquire road right-of-way in fee simple.
    Acquire land for runway 24 runway protection zone.
    Construct parallel taxiway A and taxiway L.
    Design runway 24 and taxiway A extension.
    Construct runway 24 and taxiway A extension.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Use:
    Rehabilitate taxiway D.
    Runway 6 extension, phase I.
    Brief Description of Disapproved Project: Land release at
intersection of Chambers Road and Schweizer Road.
    Determination: The project does not meet the requirements of Sec.
158.15(a).
    Decision Date: February 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Moretto, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Manchester, New Hampshire.
    Application Number: 08-12-U-00-MHT.
    Application Type: Use PFC revenue.
    PFC Level: $3.00.
    Total PFC Revenue To Be Used in This Decision: $11,401,727.
    Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2018.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2020.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: No change from
previous decision.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Use:
    Glycol collection system.
    Extension of runway 24 safety area.
    Decision Date: February 29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priscilla Scott, New England Region
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Colorado Springs, Colorado.
    Application Number: 08-12-C-00-COS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $3.00.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $2,494,547.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2009.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: December 1, 2010.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: None.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Rehabilitate portions of taxiways E, E1-8, G and H (phase II).
    Vehicle service road--east side perimeter (phase II).
    Jet bridge reconfiguration.
    Public roadway signage.
    Decision Date: March 20, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Missoula County Airport Authority, Missoula,
Montana.
    Application Number: 08-07-C-00-MSO.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $8,106,363.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Nonscheduled
on-demand (air taxi) carriers.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Missoula International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Relocate security checkpoints.
    Relocate localizer.
    Grade object free area/runway safety area transition.
    Construct fire apparatus vehicle storage facility.
    Rehabilitate runway 11/29.
    Improve airfield lighting.
    Replace and upgrade runway pavement sensor system.
    Previous and current PFC application preparation costs.
    Update airport master plan study.
    Security phase II--perimeter gate enhancements and system upgrade.
    Terminal area safety enhancements.
    Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment.
    Expand snow removal equipment storage building.
    Expand emergency operations center.
    Acquire interactive employee training system.
    Acquire liquid deicing vehicle and storage tank.
    Acquire snow removal equipment (loader with snow plow).
    Rehabilitate taxiways Delta, Alpha3, and north Golf.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use: Acquire one new public safety vehicle.
    Determination: The public agency had requested approval to acquire
two public safety vehicles. However, the FAA determined that the second
vehicle was for redundancy and exceeded known requirements. Thus, the
FAA limited its approval to one vehicle.
    Decision Date: March 20, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Stelling, Helena Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Sonoma, Santa Rosa, California.
    Application Number: 08-04-C-00-STS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $1,594,049.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Acquire land for runway approach protection (53 acres).
    Obstruction removal.
    Security enhancements.
    Airfield vacuum sweeper.
    Terminal building modernization--security screening upgrades.
    Emergency equipment.
    Cost benefit analysis for new terminal.
    Brief Description of Withdrawn Project: Acquire two trucks,
sweeper, and airfield inspection software.
    Date of Withdrawal: March 19, 2008.
    Decision Date: March 21, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Biaoco, San Francisco Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 626.
    Public Agency: County of Manistee, Manistee, Michigan.
    Application Number: 08-01-C-00-MBL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $388,986.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: November 1, 2040.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Manistee County Blacker Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Runway 09/27 surface treatment; precision approach path indicator
lights, runway 27.
    Fuel farm construction.
    New runway 09/27 design engineering.
    Snow removal equipment plow truck/sand spreader.
    Construct and grade runway 09/27.
    Land acquisition (AM 548).
    Construction supervision.
    Instrument landing system/very high frequency omnirange/automatic
weather observation station site preparation.
    Perimeter fencing design engineering.
    Instrument landing system/medium intensity approach lighting system
with runway alignment indicator lights/precision approach path
indicator lights relocations.
    Land parcels 24, 25, 26, and 27 (AM 646).
    Install perimeter fence.
    Environmental review of 41 land swap.
    Rehabilitate runway 18/36 taxiway and apron.
    Snow removal equipment building rehabilitation.
    Snow removal equipment plow truck/material spreader.
    Land reimbursement, runway 18 approach.
    Procurement documents for aircraft rescue and firefighting and snow
removal equipment vehicles.
    Decision Date: March 21, 2008.
    For Further Information Contact: Jason Watt, Detroit Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Redmond, Oregon.
    Application Number: 08-06-C-00-RDM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $1,781,478.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2010.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators--nonscheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA
Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than I percent of the total annual enplanements
at Roberts Field.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Construction management--terminal expansion.
    Construction--terminal expansion.

    Decision Date: March 27, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original     Amended
                                        Amendment       Original           Amended       estimated    estimated
      Amendment No., city, state         approved     approved net      approved net    charge exp.  charge exp.
                                           date        PFC revenue       PFC revenue        date         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 00-03-C-02-CHA, Chattanooga, TN.....     02/13/08       $19,746,474        $5,752,115     01/01/12     08/01/10
 01-08-C-02-BNA, Nashville, TN.......     03/03/08         4,514,173         4,328,889     10/01/02     10/01/02
 92-01-C-02-GUM, Agana, CU...........     03/04/08           800,000           568,661     06/01/94     06/01/94
 95-0 1-C-03-SYR, Syracuse, NY.......     03/17/08         6,737,425         3,954,577     04/01/97     04/01/97
 94-01-C-01-LSE, LaCrosse, WI........     03/18/08           795,299           571,966     08/01/97     08/01/97
 96-02-C-03-LSE, LaCrosse, WI........     03/19/08            84,367            84,734     11/01/99     11/01/99
 97-03-C-03-LSE, LaCrosse, WI........     03/19/08           485,000           473,343     03/01/00     03/01/00
 97-04-C-01-LSE, LaCrosse, WI........     03/19/08           615,000           245,313     03/01/02     09/01/01
*03-02-C-02-LGB, Long Beach, CA......     03/21/08        62,344,903        62,344,903     05/01/17     10/01/14
06-03-C-01-LGB, Long Beach, CA.......     03/21/08         7,148,186         7,148,186     12/01/18     11/01/15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notes:
    The amendment denoted by an asterisk (*) includes a change to
the PFC level charged from $3.00 per enplaned passenger to $4.50 per
enplaned passenger. For Long Beach, CA this change is effective on
May 1,2008.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 8, 2008.
Myrn Rivera,
Acting Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge
Branch.
[FR Doc. E8-8066 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15895-15898]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6669]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0084-201112; FRL-9284-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama,
Georgia, and Tennessee: Chattanooga; Determination of Attaining Data
for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Chattanooga, Tennessee-
Georgia, fine particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as ``the Chattanooga Area'' or ``Area'') has
attained the 1997 annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Chattanooga Area is comprised of
Hamilton County in Tennessee, Catoosa and Walker Counties in Georgia,
and a portion of Jackson County in Alabama. This proposed determination
of attainment is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified
ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 period showing that the
Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. If EPA finalizes this proposed determination of attainment, the
requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the
standard shall be suspended so long as the Area continues to attain the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2011-0084, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0084, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0084. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your

name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey or Sara Waterson, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey may be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Waterson may be reached by phone at (404) 562-
9061 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action Is EPA taking?
II. What Is the background for this action?
III. Does the Chattanooga area meet the annual PM2.5
NAAQS?
    A. Criteria
    B. Chattanooga Area Air Quality
IV. What Is the effect of this action?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Chattanooga Area (comprised
of Hamilton, Catoosa, and Walker Counties in their entireties and a
portion of Jackson County) has attaining data for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The proposal is based upon complete,
quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-
2009 monitoring period that shows the Area has monitored attainment of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Available data for 2010
indicate attaining data for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``1997 Annual NAAQS'' refers to both the primary and
secondary standards, which are identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this action?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA
published its air quality designations and classifications for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from
those monitors for calendar years 2001-2003. These designations became
effective on April 5, 2005. The Chattanooga Area was designated
nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR
81.301(Alabama), 40 CFR 81.311 (Georgia), and 40 CFR 81.343
(Tennessee).
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a 24-hour
NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile
of 24-hour concentrations. On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the
Chattanooga Area as attainment for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS (74 FR
58688). In that action, EPA also clarified the designations for the
NAAQS promulgated in 1997, stating that the Chattanooga Area was
designated as nonattainment for the annual NAAQS but attainment for the
24-hour NAAQS. Thus, today's action does not address attainment of
either the 1997 or the 2006 24-hour NAAQS.
    In response to legal challenges of the annual NAAQS promulgated in
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(DC Circuit) remanded this NAAQS to EPA for further consideration. See
American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et
al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). However, given that the 1997
and 2006 annual NAAQS are essentially identical, attainment of the 1997
annual NAAQS would also indicate attainment of the remanded 2006 annual
NAAQS.
    On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), EPA promulgated its
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart Z, in which the Agency provided guidance for state and tribal
plans to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This rule, at 40
CFR 51.1004(c), specifies some of the regulatory consequences of
attaining the NAAQS, as discussed below.

III. Does the Chattanooga area meet the annual PM2.5 NAAQS?

A. Criteria

    Today's rulemaking proposed to find that the Chattanooga Area is
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and provides a basis
for that final action. The Chattanooga Area is comprised of Hamilton,
Catoosa, and Walker Counties in their entireties, and a portion of
Jackson County.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary and
secondary PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the annual arithmetic
mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the subject area.

B. Chattanooga Area Air Quality

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the
Chattanooga Area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N. All data considered have been quality-assured, certified,
and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. This review
addresses air quality data collected in the 3-year period from 2007--
2009.
    The following table provides the annual average concentrations
averaged over 2007--2009 at the sites in the Chattanooga Area. The
Rossville site did not have complete data for 2007. As a result, data
substitution was performed and is discussed in the technical support
document (TSD) for this proposed rule. The annual design value for
2007-2009 for the Chattanooga Area is 12.7 [micro]g/m\3\, at the Siskin
Drive site (47-065-4002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Rossville site did not meet 75 percent data completeness
for the 2007-2009 time period due to roof replacement and subsequent
relocation of the monitor. Because the site passed data substitution
analysis, the design value for the Area is the highest reading
monitor, which is Tombras Avenue.

     Table 1.--Annual Average Concentrations in the Chattanooga Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Annual average
              Site name                   Site No.        concentration
                                                          ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tombras Avenue......................       47-065-0031              12.6
Soddy Daisy High School.............       47-065-1011              11.7
Siskin Drive........................       47-065-4002              12.7
Rossville...........................       13-295-0002          \2\ 12.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A new roof was installed in June of 2007 at the Rossville site;
therefore, no data were collected from June 12, 2007, through November
13, 2007. The pitched roof no longer supported ambient air monitors,
which resulted in the establishment of a new monitoring location. Due
to the shut-down, the Rossville site did not meet data completeness
requirements for 2007. Data substitution was used to determine the
attainment status of the Rossville site. The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GA EPD) developed a weight-of-evidence approach
\3\ for an alternative method of data substitution. The analysis used
data from Siskin Drive and Tombras Avenue sites to determine the
attainment status of the Rossville site. EPA has determined that GA EPD
successfully demonstrated a strong correlation between the
PM2.5 data from the Rossville site and two other sites.
Additionally, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards did an
additional analysis on the correlation between the sites. Further
discussion on the data substitution can be found in the TSD for this
proposed rule. Data completeness requirements were met at the other
monitors in the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the Chattanooga analysis, the weight-of-evidence
approach used was spatial averaging. The analysis can be found in
the ``Analysis of Rossville PM2.5 Data'' document
provided by GA EPD on 5/5/2010. This document will be posted in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Determinations of attainment are based on the most recent three
years of complete, quality-assured data. EPA also considers additional
quality-assured data to the extent those data are available. In
accordance with Appendix N and standard EPA practice, EPA's review of
the data was centered on the three most recent years of complete data,
2007-2009. Appendix N does not explicitly provide for comparisons to
the NAAQS involving partial years of data, because various seasons of
the year reflect various influences on PM2.5 concentrations,
and a partial year's data may not be representative of values that
would be determined from a full year's data set. Nevertheless, EPA
examined data that are available to date. For the Area, the available
data for 2010 in the AQS database are below the NAAQS; however, not all
of the 2010 data have been reported and they are not yet certified.
Based on data available in AQS through the third quarter of 2010, the
Tombras site has a preliminary 2008-2010 design value of 11.7 [micro]g/
m\3\, the Soddy Daisy site has a preliminary 2008-2010 design value of
11.1 [micro]g/m\3\, the Siskin Drive site has a preliminary 2008-2010
design value of 11.7 [micro]g/m\3\, and the Rossville site has a
preliminary design value of 10.9 [micro]g/m\3\. These preliminary
design values are consistent with continued attainment, and the
complete 2008--2010 design values are expected to be below 15.0
[micro]g/m\3\. On the basis of this review, EPA is proposing to
determine that the Chattanooga Area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and is soliciting public comments on its
proposed determination.

IV. What is the effect of this action?

    If this proposed determination of attainment is made final, the
requirements for the Chattanooga Area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures,
and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so long as the Area
continues to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).
Notably, as described below, any such determination would not be
equivalent to the redesignation of the Area to attainment for the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If this proposed rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently
determines, after notice and comment rulemaking in the Federal
Register, that the Area has violated the annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
the basis for the suspension of the specific requirements would no
longer exist for the Chattanooga Area, and the Area would thereafter
have to address the applicable requirements. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).
    Finalizing this proposed action would not constitute a
redesignation of the Area to attainment of the annual PM2.5
NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Further,
finalizing this proposed action does not involve approving maintenance
plans for the Area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor would
it find that the Area has met all other requirements for redesignation.
Even if EPA finalizes the proposed action, the designation status of
the Chattanooga Area would remain nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area
meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes
action to redesignate the Area.
    This action is only a proposed determination of attainment that the
Chattanooga Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Today's action does not address the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If the Chattanooga Area continues to monitor attainment of the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the Chattanooga
Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS will remain suspended.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain federal requirements, and it would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed 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 proposed 1997 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS data
determination for the Chattanooga Area does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-6669 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5180-5181]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on a Land Release Request at the
Trenton-Mercer Airport (TTN), Ewing, NJ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on a request to release airport land
for disposal and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and is requesting public comment on
Mercer County's proposed land release and disposal of 3.428 acres of
on-airport property at the Trenton-Mercer Airport, Ewing, NJ. The land
was purchased with federal financial assistance through FAAP Grant 9-
28-012-5803.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the following address:

Melinda Montgomery, Manager, Trenton-Mercer Airport, 340 Scotch Road,
Suite 200, Ewing, NJ 08628,<PHONE_NUMBER>

and at the FAA Harrisburg Airports District Office:

Rick Harner, Acting Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905
Hartzdale Dr., Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011,<PHONE_NUMBER>

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Trice, Project Manager,
Harrisburg Airports District Office, location listed above. Telephone:
(717) 730-2843. The request to release airport property may be reviewed
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a brief overview of the
request:
    The County requests the release of a total of 3.428 acres of
property. The property is currently airport-dedicated property, and is
occupied by a branch of the Mercer County Library, including the
library building itself and parking for the library users. The property
will continue to be owned by the County and used for its current
purpose. The only change is that the property will no longer be
designated as federally obligated airport property. As shown on the
Airport Layout Plan, the subject property is to the south and west of
Runway 34 and is separated from the rest of airport property by a
railroad line. Based on this location the property is not needed now or
in the foreseeable future for aeronautical purposes and/or airport
development. Through funding the County of Mercer has provided to the
airport over the last 6 years, the County has already paid well in
excess of the sum of both the fair market fee simple value of the
subject property and the fair market value of the lease rate of the
subject property over each of the last 6 years combined. Therefore, it
is not proposed that the County of Mercer provide any additional
funding, so as to secure the release of this acreage from federal
obligations.
    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed lease.
All comments will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.

    Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, February 13, 2019.
Rick Harner,
Acting Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2019-02838 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11545-11547]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4692]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63962; File No. SR-MSRB-2011-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendments to
Rule A-15, on Notification To Board of Termination of Municipal
Securities Activities and Change of Name or Address

February 24, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 14, 2011, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``Board'' or ``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The MSRB has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act,\3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b4-(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing a proposed rule change relating to the
notification requirements in the event of a change in status of a
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal advisor,
consisting of amendments to Rule A-15, on Notification to Board of
Termination of Municipal Securities Activities and Change of Name or
Address.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2011-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 MSRB 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Board 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 purposes of the proposed rule change are: (i) To extend the
provisions of Rule A-15 to municipal advisors; and (ii) to expand the
circumstances under which the MSRB must be notified to include: (A) a
bar or suspension from engaging in municipal securities activities or
municipal advisory activities by the appropriate regulatory agency,
judicial authority, or otherwise; and (B) in the case of a broker,
dealer, or municipal securities dealer, expulsion or suspension from
membership or participation in a national securities exchange or
registered securities association. Although existing Rule A-15
establishes a procedure for notification of a change in status with
respect to brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers, it does
not apply to municipal advisors. Further, existing Rule A-15 does not
provide for notification to the Board in the event of disbarment or
suspension by regulatory agencies or judicial authorities or otherwise,
or, with respect to brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers,
expulsion or suspension from membership or participation in a national
securities exchange or registered securities association. The proposed
rule change (i) adds municipal advisors to the entities subject to the
rule; (ii) requires notification if (A) a broker, dealer, municipal
securities dealer, or municipal advisor has been barred or suspended
from engaging in municipal securities activities or municipal advisory
activities by the appropriate regulatory agency, judicial authority or
otherwise; and (B) if a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer
has been expelled or suspended from membership or participation in a
national securities exchange or registered securities association.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2) of the Act, which provides that:

    The Board shall propose and adopt rules to effect the purposes
of this title with respect

to transactions in municipal securities effected by brokers,
dealers, and municipal securities dealers and advice provided to or
on behalf of municipal entities or obligated persons by brokers,
dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors with
respect to municipal financial products, the issuance of municipal
securities, and solicitations of municipal entities or obligated
persons undertaken by brokers, dealers, municipal securities
dealers, and municipal advisors;

and, in particular, Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, which provides, in
pertinent part, that MSRB rules shall:

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest * *
*.

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2) and
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act because it will assist the Board in
monitoring which brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and
municipal advisors should no longer be listed as MSRB registrants and,
accordingly, will aid investors, municipal entities, obligated persons,
and the public in their choice of brokers, dealers, municipal
securities dealers, and municipal advisors.
    Section 15B(2)(L)(iv) of the Act requires that rules adopted by the
Board

not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is
not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons,
provided that there is robust protection of investors against fraud.

    The proposed rule change does not impose a regulatory burden on
small municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and for the protection of investors, municipal
entities, and obligated persons and for the robust protection of
investors against fraud. Rule A-15, as amended by the proposed rule
change, requires that municipal advisors submit a notice indicating
their change in status. The MSRB expects that municipal advisors will
need no more than 30 minutes to complete the notification required by
the proposed rule change, and such notice may be submitted by email or
fax, as well as by regular mail or overnight delivery service. The MSRB
will have staff ready to assist municipal advisors should they have any
questions. The proposed rule change does not impose any additional fee
on municipal advisors but only requires payment of any amounts
otherwise due and owing under other rules of the Board. Any burden on
municipal advisors is de minimis. The proposed rule change is necessary
to aid the Board in monitoring which brokers, dealers, municipal
securities dealers, and municipal advisors should no longer be listed
as MSRB registrants and, accordingly, will aid investors, municipal
entities, obligated persons, and the public by providing information to
inform their choice of broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or
municipal advisor.

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act, since it would apply equally to all
brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The MSRB represented that the proposed rule change qualifies for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\5\ thereunder, because it: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after filing or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 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 MSRB provided the required written notice of its intention to
file the proposed rule change to the Commission on February 3, 2011,
and the proposed rule change will become operative on March 17, 2011,
which is more than 30 days after the filing of the proposed rule
change.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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 Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MSRB-2011-05 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-MSRB-2011-05. 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 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 Web site viewing and printing 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 MSRB's offices. 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-MSRB-2011-05
and should be submitted on or before March 23, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-4692 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6010]
[DOCID:fr04fe09-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2008-0754; FRL-8768-1]

Oklahoma: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Oklahoma has applied to EPA for Final
authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant
Final authorization to the State of Oklahoma. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the
changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior
to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose
this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by March 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the
materials submitted by the State of Oklahoma during normal business
hours at the following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73101-1677,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the immediate final
rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 7, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E9-2371 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 23618]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09766]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74786; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proposed Rule Change Related to Equipment and Communication
on the Exchange's Trading Floor

April 22, 2015.
    On February 20, 2015, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's rules
relating to equipment and communication devices used on the Exchange's
trading floor. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 10, 2015.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74438 (March 4,
2015), 80 FR 12671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is April 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider
this proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would, among other
things, eliminate the requirement for members to obtain approval from
the Exchange before using any new communication device on the trading
floor.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates June 8, 2015 as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
CBOE-2015-022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09766 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 18974]
[DOCID:fr16ap07-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-395-000]

NSTAR Gas Company; Complainant, v. Algonquin Gas Transmission,
LLC; Respondents; Notice of Complaint

April 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 9, 2007, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules and Practice and Procedure and sections 4 and 5 of the Natural
Gas Act, NSTAR Gas Company (Complainant) filed a formal complaint
against Algonquin Gas Transmission (respondent) alleging an
anticipatory breach of contract arising from the respondent's threat to
totally curtail service through the J-2 portion of its integrated
pipeline system for a signification duration.
    The Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served
upon the respondent.
    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 April 30, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7169 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9781-9783]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1251; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-044-AD;
Amendment 39-17335; AD 2013-03-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24-954 and FU24A-954
airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued 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 aircraft operating outside the
aircraft aft center of gravity (C of G) limits during parachute-drop
operations. Exceeding C of G limits could result in loss of control of
the aircraft. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 19, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 19,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. For service information identified in this AD,
contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Hamilton Airport, Private Bag, 3027
Hamilton, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.aerospace.co.nz/. You may review copies of the 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>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, 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:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2012
(77 FR 71357), and proposed to supersede AD 2010-20-18, Amendment 39-
16453 (75 FR 59606, September 28, 2010).
    Since we issued AD 2010-20-18, Amendment 39-16453 (75 FR 59606,
September 28, 2010), information has been received that shows that the
operating limitations should be different between turbine engine and
piston engine Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24-954 and FU24A-954
airplanes.
    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority
for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/FU24/182, dated October 25, 2012
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The new MCAI AD supersedes the
requirements in AD DCA/FU24/179.
    The new MCAI requires adding a requirement to install station
marking placards inside the rear cabin walls and inserting a supplement
into the airplane flight manual (AFM) specifically approved for
parachuting operations that contains detailed information for
determining the weight and balance of the aircraft for turbine engine
airplanes. This AD also retains all actions in AD 2010-20-18, Amendment
39-16453 (75 FR 59606, September 28, 2010), for all airplanes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 71357, November 30,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 71357, November 30, 2012), for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 71357, November 30, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 22 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $1,870 per product.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    (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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 the NPRM (77 FR 71357, November 30,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 removing AD 2010-20-18, Amendment 39-
16453 (75 FR 59606, September 28, 2010), and adding the following new
AD:

2013-03-01 Pacific Aerospace Limited: Amendment 39-17335; Docket No.
FAA-2012-1251; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-044-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 19,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2010-20-18, Amendment 39-16453 (75 FR
59606, September 28, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24-954 and
FU24A-954 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
    (1) certificated in any category; and
    (2) modified to conduct parachute operations.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 8: Leveling and
Weighing.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of aircraft operating outside
the aft center of gravity (C of G) limits during parachute-drop
operations. We are issuing this AD to prevent exceeding C of G
limits, which could result in loss of control of the aircraft.

(f) Actions and Compliance for All Airplanes (Both Turbine and Piston
Engine Airplanes) Retained From AD 2010-20-18, Amendment 39-16453 (75
FR 59606, September 28, 2010)

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) As of October 18, 2010 (the effective date retained from AD
2010-20-18, Amendment 39-16453 (75 FR 59606, September 28, 2010)),
before further parachute-drop operations:
    (i) Amend the airplane flight manual (AFM) to restrict maximum
occupancy of the cabin aft of fuselage station (F.S) 118.84 to 6
persons. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the
AFM adjacent to the applicable supplement for parachuting
operations; and
    (ii) Fabricate a placard at least 2 by 4 inches (using at least
1/8-inch letters) and install the placard in two places, one on each
side of the aft cabin, in view of all occupants as they enter and
occupy the cabin which states the following: Maximum occupancy of
this cabin limited to six persons for parachuting operations. Weight
and balance must be confirmed for each flight.
    (2) As of October 18, 2010 (the effective date retained from AD
2010-20-18, Amendment 39-16453 (75 FR 59606, September 28, 2010)),
before further parachute-drop operations, the weight and balance
calculation must comply with the following limitations and establish
that the aircraft C of G will remain within AFM limits for the
duration of the flight:
    (i) Use actual weights for all occupants and their equipment to
do the calculation;
    (ii) Account for the positions of all occupants in the
calculation. Do the calculation with the occupants' (parachuting
group) positions at the most aft positions that result from the
rearmost members of the group sitting against the aft cabin wall and
subsequent occupants located immediately forward of them, unless a
means of restraint is provided to prevent the occupants moving
rearwards from their normal position; and
    (iii) Keep a record of the C of G determination for each
parachuting operation.

(g) New Actions and Compliance for Turbine Engine Airplanes

    Within the next 15 days after March 19, 2013 (the effective date
of this AD), do the following:
    (1) Add fuselage station (F.S.) reference line placards inside
the rear cabin walls following the instructions in Section 2.5,
Placards, of the CAA Approved AFM Supplement for Aircraft Modified
for Parachuting Operations, PT6 Fletcher-EX Document Reference: AIR
2817-FMS-P1, dated October 15, 2012, or Walter Fletcher Document
Reference: AIR 2672-FMS-P1, dated October 15, 2012, as applicable.
    (2) Insert Section 2.4, Weight and Balance, of the CAA Approved
AFM Supplement for Aircraft Modified for Parachuting Operations, PT6
Fletcher-EX Document Reference: AIR 2817-FMS-P1, dated October 15,
2012, or Walter Fletcher Document Reference: AIR 2672-FMS-P1, dated
October 15, 2012, as applicable, into the AFM.

(h) 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: Doug Rudolph, 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.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) AD DCA/FU24/182,
dated October 25, 2012; CAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement PT6
Fletcher-EX for Aircraft Modified for Parachuting Operations,
Document Reference: AIR 2817-FMS-P1, dated October 15, 2012; and CAA
Approved Flight Manual Supplement Walter Fletcher for Aircraft
Modified for Parachuting Operations, Document Reference: AIR 2672-
FMS-P1, dated October 15, 2012, for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) CAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement PT6 Fletcher-EX for
Aircraft Modified for Parachuting Operations, Document Reference:
AIR 2817-FMS-P1, dated October 15, 2012.
    (ii) CAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement Walter Fletcher for
Aircraft Modified for Parachuting Operations, Document Reference:
AIR 2672-FMS-P1, dated October 15, 2012.
    (3) For Pacific Aerospace Limited service information identified
in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Hamilton Airport,
Private Bag, 3027 Hamilton, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144;
fax: +64 7 843 6134; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.aerospace.co.nz/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/index.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 29, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02364 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P