[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1133-1143]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21 and 36

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0629; Amdt. Nos. 21-97; 36-29]
RIN 2120-AJ76

Noise Certification Standards for Tiltrotors

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends the regulations governing noise certification
standards for issuing type and airworthiness certificates for a new
civil, hybrid airplane-rotorcraft known as the tiltrotor. This noise
standard establishes new noise limits and procedures as the basis to
ensure consistent aviation noise reduction technology is incorporated
in tiltrotors for environmental protection. It provides uniform noise
certification standards for tiltrotors certificated in the United
States and harmonizes the U.S. regulations with the standards of the
International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Annex 16.

DATES: Effective March 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule contact Sandy Liu, AEE-100, Office of Environment and
Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (202) 267-
5594; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this final rule contact Karen
Petronis, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, International Law,
Legislation, and Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)
267-3073; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44715, Controlling aircraft
noise and sonic boom. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to measure and abate aircraft noise. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority since it would
establish new noise certification test procedures and noise limits for
a new class of aircraft. Applicants for type certificates, changes in
type design, and airworthiness certificates for tiltrotors are required
to comply with these new regulations.

Overview of Final Rule

    The standards in this final rule apply to the issuance of an
original type certificate, changes to a type certificate, and the
issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate for tiltrotors. This
final rule creates noise certification standards that are applicable to
all tiltrotors, such as the AgustaWestland Model AW609 currently under
development. These regulations incorporate the same standards as ICAO
Annex 16, Volume 1, Chapter 13, Attachment F (Amendment 7) for
tiltrotors, consistent with the FAA goal of harmonizing U.S.
regulations with international standards.

Background

    A new aircraft type known as a tiltrotor is currently in production
after more than six decades of research and development. The aircraft
uses rotating nacelles, a hybrid of propellers and helicopter rotors,
to provide both lift and propulsive force. The tiltrotor is designed to
function as a helicopter for takeoff and landing and as an airplane
during the en-route portion of flight operations.
    The most recognizable tiltrotor operating today is the V-22 Osprey
used by the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Air Force. The V-22 Osprey was
designed for the U.S. Department of Defense Special Operations Forces
and can transport 24 fully equipped troops. The proposed civil version
of the tiltrotor would carry up to nine passengers.
    The tiltrotor concept was first explored for the U.S. Army in the
mid-1950s as a convertiplane concept that incorporated mixed vertical
and forward flight capabilities. In 1958, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
(Bell) of Fort Worth, Texas developed the XV-3 tiltrotor for a joint
research program between the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. The Bell
XV-3 completed a successful full conversion from vertical flight to
forward cruise and demonstrated the feasibility of tiltrotor
technology. Following the successful full conversion of the Bell XV-3,
the U.S. Army and National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded
Bell a prototype development contract in the mid 1970s to build two
Bell XV-15 tiltrotor demonstrator aircraft. These tiltrotor aircraft
served as predecessors to the V-22 Osprey to demonstrate mature
tiltrotor technology and flight capabilities.

ICAO Noise Certification Standards

    ICAO is the international body with responsibility for the
development of International Standards and Recommended Practices
pursuant to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago
Convention). Consistent with their obligations under the Chicago
Convention, Contracting States agree to implement ICAO standards in
their national regulations to the extent practicable. The standards for
aircraft noise are contained in Annex 16, Environmental Protection,
Volume 1, Aircraft Noise.
    In anticipation of civil tiltrotor production, ICAO's Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) chartered the Tiltrotor Task
Group (TRTG) in 1997 to develop noise certification guidelines for
tiltrotors. The FAA participated in the TRTG and its development of the
tiltrotor noise guidelines from 1997 to 2000. The ICAO tiltrotor
guidelines used the same noise limits that the United States had
incorporated into part 36, Appendix H for helicopter noise
certification. The ICAO has included additional requirements that are
unique to the design of tiltrotors.
    On June 29, 2001, the TRTG's guidelines were adopted by the ICAO
Council for incorporation into Annex 16, Volume 1, Chapter 13,
Attachment F (Amendment 7). The ICAO guidelines became effective on
October 29, 2001, with an applicability date of March 21, 2002.

Statement of the Problem

    Current regulations in part 36 do not contain noise certification
requirements specific to the tiltrotor and its unique

flight capabilities. Since no standards for the tiltrotor currently
exist, the FAA is adding new standards to part 36, and amending part
21, Sec.  21.93 (Classification of Changes in Type Design) to
accommodate certification of the tiltrotor. In order to harmonize the
U.S. regulations with the international standards, this rulemaking
adopts the same noise certification standards as used in ICAO Annex 16,
Volume 1, Chapter 13, Attachment F (Amendment 7) for tiltrotors.

Type Certification Activity in the United States

    As the tiltrotor concept and technology proved promising with the
production of the V-22 Osprey, Bell and Agusta (now AgustaWestland)
established a joint business venture in September 1998 to co-develop
the Bell/Agusta model BA609 civil tiltrotor.
    In August 1996, Bell, the original and lead developer of the
tiltrotor, applied for a U.S. type certificate for the model BA609
tiltrotor, prior to the establishment of the joint venture. The BA609
would be type certificated as a ``special class'' of aircraft under
Sec. Sec.  21.17 and 21.21, using the applicable airworthiness
provisions of part 25 (Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category
Airplanes) and part 29 (Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category
Rotorcraft). This is the first application for this class of aircraft.
    In June 2011, the contract for the joint tiltrotor program between
Bell and AgustaWestland was renegotiated, with AgustaWestland assuming
full ownership. The change in ownership resulted in the BA609
designation being renamed to the AW609, and on February 15, 2012,
AgustaWestland applied for a type certificate from the FAA.
AgustaWestland is targeting existing helicopter operators as the
primary civil market for the AW609, and has stated that the AW609 could
operate from existing heliports without the need for new infrastructure
to accommodate the aircraft.

Summary of the NPRM

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on June
21, 2011 (76 FR 36001) that proposed the changes to parts 21 and 36
discussed above that would establish noise certification standards for
issuing type and airworthiness certificates for the tiltrotor.

Discussion of Public Comments

    The comment period for the NPRM closed on October 19, 2011. The FAA
received one comment, from AgustaWestland. AgustaWestland stated that
the proposed rule did not specify the entity that would determine the
flyover configuration in Appendix K to Part 36. AgustaWestland
recommended that the regulation specify that the applicant be the
entity that prescribes the constant flyover aircraft configuration.
    The FAA agrees the regulation needs to specify what entity
prescribes the constant flyover configuration. The FAA agrees the
applicant is the proper entity, and has modified the final rule to
incorporate this change.

Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

    We are adopting this final rule for the reasons stated in the NPRM,
with the following changes. First, the NPRM incorrectly included
VMCP and VMO as requirements for tiltrotors. Both
VMCP and VMO are voluntary reporting parameters
for airspeeds at maximum continuous power and maximum operating limit
for airplane mode as noted in the ICAO standards. The FAA is not
requiring them in Part 36. However, the voluntary reporting of
VMCP and VMO will be recommended in an
accompanying Advisory Circular as supplemental information. The FAA is
removing VMCP and VMO representing airplane mode
from Sec.  36.1 and Appendix K in the final rule since airplane mode is
only a voluntary and supplemental condition for noise. The harshest
(maximum) noise levels are identified in helicopter mode.
    Second, the labels used in the proposed Figure K.2 of Appendix K to
part 36 incorrectly describe the two sideline noise measurement points
as S(starboard) and S(port) instead of
S(sideline) for both. Since the flyover condition has a
symmetrical test set-up, the generic label assignment,
S(sideline), is used to indicate that flight from either
direction is allowable without a reference to right or left. The figure
is adopted in this final rule with the corrected labels.
    Third, the NPRM included the term ``power-on'' in section K6.1(f)
of Appendix K to part 36. That terminology is outdated and is replaced
in this final rule by the term ``reference''.
    Fourth, the final rule adds the phrase ``throughout the 10 dB-down
time interval.'' in sections K7.5, K7.9 and K7.10 of Appendix K of part
36 to be consistent throughout the appendix.
    Fifth, based on AgustaWestland's comment discussed previously,
section K6.3(b) of Appendix K to part 36 specifies that the flyover
configuration is to be selected by the applicant.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and 13563 direct each Federal
agency to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39)
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows,
    This final rule:
    (1) Imposes minimal incremental costs and provides benefits;
    (2) Is not an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866;
    (3) Is not significant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures;
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities;
    (5) Will not have a significant effect on international trade; and
    (6) Will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal

governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary
threshold identified.

These analyses are summarized below.

    No comments were received on the regulatory evaluation of the
proposed rule. However, after the NPRM was published on June 21, 2011,
there was a change in the ownership of the known civil tiltrotor
program.
    When the NPRM was published, the one known civil tiltrotor
development program was jointly owned by the Bell and AgustaWestland
helicopter companies; the project was designated the BA609. In
November, 2011 AgustaWestland purchased Bell's share of the civil
tiltrotor program and changed the designation of the aircraft in
development to AW609. The former Bell Agusta Aerospace Company (BAAC)
was renamed the AgustaWestland Tilt-Rotor Company, LLC and merged with
Agusta US Incorporated to become AgustaWestland Tilt-Rotor Company
Incorporated, an American company that is the applicant for a type
certificate for the AW609. The new company is incorporated in Delaware
and is a wholly owned subsidiary of AgustaWestland that is owned by
Finmeccanica, an Italian firm.
    The AgustaWestland Tilt-Rotor Company, Inc. has rented a facility
at the Arlington, Texas Municipal Airport. The facility consists of
approximately 99,000 square feet including a hangar/office building.
The company plans to construct an adjacent office building. The
facilities may be used for aircraft sales, engineering and design,
flight testing, and aircraft maintenance, and other activities when
approved by the airport.
    Because of the change in ownership of the civil tiltrotor program
that occurred after the publication of the NPRM, this regulatory
evaluation has been revised to incorporate the changed circumstances.
    There are currently no part 36 noise certification standards for
tiltrotors in U.S. regulations. This final rule provides part 36 noise
certification requirements for tiltrotors by adopting existing ICAO
standards. The initial regulatory evaluation estimated that these noise
requirements would be minimal cost. We asked for comments and received
none. Accordingly, we affirm our determination that these requirements
will be minimal cost. Providing U.S. tiltrotor noise certification
standards will facilitate the startup and development of a new
commercial class of aircraft, the tiltrotor, and allow for
certification in the United States as exists for other aircraft
designs. The tiltrotor aircraft type can then be marketed domestically
and internationally. The FAA believes that this could result in
substantial benefits.
    The FAA used the same price/cost estimates for the NPRM and
received no comments. The FAA maintained in the NPRM that this rule was
minimal cost and we received no comments on that determination.
    The total value of the estimated market equals the aircraft
purchase price multiplied by the estimated units sold. The potential
size of the tiltrotor market has been estimated using the sales
projections of the previous developer, Bell/Agusta. In the next 10
years, one model of a civil tiltrotor is expected to be available, the
AW609 (previously the BA609). This aircraft is currently in
development.
    The price of a BA609 (now the AW609) was estimated to be $10 to $14
million (aircraftcompare.com, ``Bell Agusta BA609'', http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Bell%20Agusta%20BA609%20/279). This is an increase from the original estimate of $7 million in
2000. The price of $14 million for a BA609 was used to estimate the
potential market size for tiltrotor aircraft because AgustaWestland has
not announced a purchase price for the AW609.
    Bell estimated that the market would result in sales of
approximately 100 BA609s over 10 years, making the potential near-term
tiltrotor market worth a nominal $1 billion to $1.4 billion. Table 1
shows the nominal and present value estimates of the tiltrotor market.
The present value is based on a 7 percent discount rate, and a ten year
production period with 10 tiltrotors being delivered each year. The
present value of the tiltrotor market is estimated to be between
$702,000,000 and $983,000,000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA13.005

    Table 2 summarizes the incremental manufacturer costs for the noise
certification of a civil tiltrotor as discussed in the initial
regulatory evaluation. At that time we determined that these costs were
minimal. We received no comments on that determination and it is not
changed in the final rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA13.006

    Issuance of a type certificate requires compliance with the
applicable noise certification requirements of part 36. Full noise
certification testing is generally required for each new aircraft type
and for certain voluntary changes to type design that are classified as
acoustical change under Sec.  21.93(b). The incremental costs recur
only when a new type certificate is issued, or when a change to a type
design results after an acoustical change is made.
    Noise certification costs consist of four major items: Acoustics;
Flight Test; Aircraft; and Miscellaneous. For tiltrotors noise
certification, as for any aircraft certification, the noise
demonstration flight testing and reporting is the largest incremental
cost of the noise certification.
    To meet the regulatory requirements for noise control, acoustical
measurements are used to quantify the characteristic noise levels of
the aircraft. Almost half the noise certification expense ($250,000) is
invested in the acoustics group equipment and analysis. This cost
includes overall noise test planning and coordination, noise test site
preparation and measurement set-up.
    The second highest noise certification expense involves the flight
test support ($220,000). These are the expenses for configuring and
preparing the aircraft to execute the required noise flight test
procedures.
    The last two noise certification expense groups are aircraft and
miscellaneous expenses. The aircraft expense ($50,000) involves costs
associated with aircraft flight time, fuel, and flight crew support.
Most other general expenses of test support are miscellaneous costs
($68,000).
    The cost estimates for noise certification were provided by Bell
Helicopter Textron, the original developer of the civil tiltrotor. The
cost of noise certification for the tiltrotor is comparable to that for
a large helicopter (over 7,000 pounds). As shown in Table 2, the
estimated total incremental cost of a single noise certification is
$588,000. As the $588,000 would be incurred in the first year, the
nominal value equals the present value.
    The FAA may incur costs in this certification process. However,
these costs are not expected to vary significantly from the agency's
current costs to noise certificate any other new aircraft type.
    Based on the above analyses, and consistent with the determinations
made in the NPRM, this final rule is considered to be a minimal cost
rule.
    Since the tiltrotor industry is still developing, the costs and
benefits discussed are based on the single existing civil tiltrotor
program. This final rule establishes the noise certification
requirements for a tiltrotor. While the estimated benefits and costs
are based on a single tiltrotor type, we have also determined that any
future designs will benefit from the established noise certification
requirements.
    The present value cost of the final rule is $588,000 for the
certification of one tiltrotor type, about the same as would be
required for a traditional helicopter design. The FAA considered this
cost to be minimal in the NPRM. The FAA received no comments on this
minimal cost determination. Therefore, the FAA considers this cost to
be minimal in this final regulatory evaluation.
    The FAA believes that this final rule will be cost beneficial
because it is minimal cost, and because it facilitates the development
of tiltrotor aircraft and the commercial market for them.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.
    When the NPRM was published, the tiltrotor was being developed by a
joint venture of Bell Helicopter, an American company and
AgustaWestland, an Italian firm. Because an American firm was
potentially affected by the proposed rule, a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis was prepared. No comments were received on the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis which concluded there was no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    After the NPRM was published, AgustaWestland, an Italian company,
bought the ownership interests of Bell Helicopter. As such, the
original BAAC was renamed and merged to become AgustaWestland Tilt-
Rotor Company Incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of
AgustaWestland, an Italian company. AgustaWestland is owned by
Finmeccanica, also an Italian company.
    Section 601 of the RFA defines the term ``small business'' as
follows: ``The term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act, *
* *''
    Section 3(a)(1) of the Small Business Act defines a small business
concern as follows: ``For the purposes of this Act, a small business
concern, including, but not limited to enterprises that are engaged in
the business of the production of food and fiber, ranching and raising
of livestock, aquaculture, and all other farming and agricultural
related industries, shall be deemed to be one which is independently
owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation:
''
    Section 3(a)(2) of the Small Business Act discusses the
establishment of size standards. The Small Business Administration
(SBA) size standard for a small entity in aircraft manufacturing is
1,500 employees.
    The AgustaWestland Tilt-Rotor Company Incorporated currently
employs 12 people. While the number of employees of the AgustaWestland
Tilt Rotor Company meets the SBA employment size standard for a small
entity, the company is not a small entity as defined by the SBA because
it is not independently owned and operated. The owner of the
AgustaWestland Tilt-Rotor Company, Inc. is Finmeccanica, which has
75,733 employees, far exceeding the aircraft manufacturing size
standard of 1,500 employees.
    There are no other companies which are known to be developing or
manufacturing a civil tiltrotor. Therefore, Finmeccanica (including its
subsidiaries) is the dominant company involved in the development of a
civilian tiltrotor. This final rule is expected to be minimal cost and
there are no small entities affected. Therefore, as the acting FAA
Administrator, I certify that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small tiltrotor
manufacturers.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and
determined that it will encourage international trade by adopting the
international standards of ICAO as the basis for a rule for the noise
certification of tiltrotors.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a
mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action''. The FAA
currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of
$100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate;
therefore, the requirements of Title II do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. In 2001, ICAO
adopted tiltrotor noise guidelines. This regulation harmonizes U.S.
noise standards with the international standards by adopting the same
requirements, adapted for the U.S. regulatory format.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. This rule adopts
internationally established noise standards for a new civil, hybrid
airplane-rotorcraft known as the tiltrotor. Based on the presence of
both helicopter and propeller airplane characteristics inherit in the
tiltrotor, the noise standards use preexisting helicopter noise
certification limits and procedures. This final rule adopts these noise
limits to control the harshest (maximum) noise levels when the
tiltrotor operates in its noisiest configuration--helicopter mode. In
airplane mode, the tiltrotor is significantly quieter because of its
low RPM design in cruise mode. The FAA finds the applicability of the
noise limits adopted here as technologically and environmentally
consistent for this new class of aircraft.
    The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f of the Order and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

Executive Order Determinations

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.

Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive Order 12866 and
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

How To Obtain Additional Information

Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using
the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 21

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 36

    Aircraft, Noise control.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.

0
2. Amend Sec.  21.93 by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  21.93  Classification of changes in type design.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Tiltrotors.
* * * * *

PART 36--NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATION

0
3. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44715; sec. 305, Pub. L. 96-193, 94 Stat. 50,
57; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902.

0
4. Amend Sec.  36.1 as follows:
0
A. Add paragraph (a)(5);
0
B. Amend paragraph (c) by removing the phrase ``or 36.11'' and adding
the phrase ``36.11 or 36.13'' in its place; and
0
C. Add paragraph (i)
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  36.1  Applicability and definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) Type certificates, changes to those certificates, and standard
airworthiness certificates, for tiltrotors.
* * * * *
    (i) For the purpose of showing compliance with this part for
tiltrotors, the following terms have the specified meanings:
    Airplane mode means a configuration with nacelles on the down stops
(axis aligned horizontally) and rotor speed set to cruise revolutions
per minute (RPM).
    Airplane mode RPM means the lower range of rotor rotational speed
in RPM defined for the airplane mode cruise flight condition.
    Fixed operation points mean designated nacelle angle positions
selected for airworthiness reference. These are default positions used
to refer to normal nacelle positioning operation of the aircraft. The
nacelle angle is controlled by a self-centering switch. When the
nacelle angle is 0 degrees (airplane mode) and the pilot moves the
nacelle switch upwards, the nacelles are programmed to automatically
turn to the first default position (for example, 60 degrees) where they
will stop. A second upward move of the switch will tilt the nacelle to
the second default position (for example, 75 degrees). Above the last
default position, the nacelle angle can be set to any angle up to
approximately 95 degrees by moving the switch in the up or down
direction. The number and position of the fixed operation points may
vary on different tiltrotor configurations.
    Nacelle angle is defined as the angle between the rotor shaft
centerline and the longitudinal axis of the aircraft fuselage.
    Tiltrotor means a class of aircraft capable of vertical take-off
and landing, within the powered-lift category, with rotors mounted at
or near the wing tips that vary in pitch from near vertical to near
horizontal configuration relative to the wing and fuselage.
    Vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) mode means the aircraft state
or configuration having the rotors orientated with the axis of rotation
in a vertical manner (i.e., nacelle angle of approximately 90 degrees)
for vertical takeoff and landing operations.
    VCON is defined as the maximum authorized speed for any
nacelle angle in VTOL/Conversion mode.
    VTOL/Conversion mode is all approved nacelle positions where the

design operating rotor speed is used for hover operations.
    VTOL mode RPM means highest range of RPM that occur for takeoff,
approach, hover, and conversion conditions.

0
5. Add Sec.  36.13 to subpart A to read as follows:

Sec.  36.13  Acoustical change: Tiltrotor aircraft.

    The following requirements apply to tiltrotors in any category for
which an acoustical change approval is applied for under Sec.  21.93(b)
of this chapter on or after March 11, 2013:
    (a) In showing compliance with Appendix K of this part, noise
levels must be measured, evaluated, and calculated in accordance with
the applicable procedures and conditions prescribed in Appendix K of
this part.
    (b) Compliance with the noise limits prescribed in section K4
(Noise Limits) of Appendix K of this part must be shown in accordance
with the applicable provisions of sections K2 (Noise Evaluation
Measure), K3 (Noise Measurement Reference Points), K6 (Noise
Certification Reference Procedures), and K7 (Test Procedures) of
Appendix K of this part.
    (c) After a change in type design, tiltrotor noise levels may not
exceed the limits specified in Sec.  36.1103.

0
6. Add Subpart K of part 36 to read as follows:
Subpart K--Tiltrotors
Sec.
36.1101 Noise measurement and evaluation.
36.1103 Noise limits.

Subpart K--Tiltrotors

Sec.  36.1101  Noise measurement and evaluation.

    For tiltrotors, the noise generated must be measured and evaluated
under Appendix K of this part, or under an approved equivalent
procedure.

Sec.  36.1103  Noise limits.

    (a) Compliance with the maximum noise levels prescribed in Appendix
K of this part must be shown for a tiltrotor for which the application
for the issuance of a type certificate is made on or after March 11,
2013.
    (b) To demonstrate compliance with this part, noise levels may not
exceed the noise limits listed in Appendix K, Section K4, Noise Limits
of this part. Appendix K of this part (or an approved equivalent
procedure) must also be used to evaluate and demonstrate compliance
with the approved test procedures, and at the applicable noise
measurement points.

0
7. Add Appendix K to part 36 to read as follows:
Appendix K to Part 36--Noise Requirements for Tiltrotors Under Subpart
K
Sec.
K1 General
K2 Noise Evaluation Measure
K3 Noise Measurement Reference Points
K4 Noise Limits
K5 Trade-offs
K6 Noise Certification Reference Procedures
K7 Test Procedures

Section K1 General

    This appendix prescribes noise limits and procedures for measuring
noise and adjusting the data to standard conditions for tiltrotors as
specified in Sec.  36.1 of this part.

Section K2 Noise Evaluation Measure

    The noise evaluation measure is the effective perceived noise level
in EPNdB, to be calculated in accordance with section A36.4 of Appendix
A to this part, except corrections for spectral irregularities must be
determined using the 50 Hz sound pressure level found in section
H36.201 of Appendix H to this part.

Section K3 Noise Measurement Reference Points

    The following noise reference points must be used when
demonstrating tiltrotor compliance with section K6 (Noise Certification
Reference Procedures) and section K7 (Test Procedures) of this
appendix:
    (a) Takeoff reference noise measurement points--
    As shown in Figure K1 below:
    (1) The centerline noise measurement flight path reference point,
designated A, is located on the ground vertically below the reference
takeoff flight path. The measurement point is located 1,640 feet (500
m) in the horizontal direction of flight from the point Cr where
transition to climbing flight is initiated, as described in section
K6.2 of this appendix;
    (2) Two sideline noise measurement points, designated as
S(starboard) and S(port), are located on the ground perpendicular to
and symmetrically stationed at 492 feet (150 m) on each side of the
takeoff reference flight path. The measurement points bisect the
centerline flight path reference point A.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA13.007

    (b) Flyover reference noise measurement points--
    As shown in Figure K2 below:
    (1) The centerline noise measurement flight path reference point,
designated A, is located on the ground 492 feet (150 m) vertically
below the reference flyover flight path. The measurement point is
defined by the flyover reference procedure in section K6.3 of this
appendix;
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA13.008

    (2) Two sideline noise measurement points, designated as
S(sideline), are located on the ground perpendicular to and
symmetrically stationed at 492 feet (150 m) on each side of the flyover
reference flight path. The measurement points bisect the centerline
flight path reference point A.
    (c) Approach reference noise measurement points--
    As shown in Figure K3 below:
    (1) The centerline noise measurement flight path reference point,
designated A, is located on the ground 394 feet (120 m) vertically
below the reference approach flight path. The measurement point is
defined by the approach reference procedure in section K6.4 of this
appendix. On level ground, the measurement point corresponds to a
position 3,740 feet (1,140 m) from the intersection of the 6.0 degree
approach path with the ground plane;
    (2) Two sideline noise measurement points, designated as
S(starboard) and S(port), are located on the ground perpendicular to
and symmetrically stationed at 492 feet (150 m) on each side of the
approach reference flight path. The measurement points bisect the
centerline flight path reference point A.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA13.009

Section K4 Noise Limits

    For a tiltrotor, the maximum noise levels, as determined in
accordance with the noise evaluation in EPNdB and calculation method
described in section H36.201 of Appendix H of this part, must not
exceed the noise limits as follows:
    (a) At the takeoff flight path reference point: For a tiltrotor
having a maximum certificated takeoff weight (mass) of 176,370 pounds
(80,000 kg) or more, in VTOL/Conversion mode, 109 EPNdB, decreasing
linearly with the logarithm of the tiltrotor weight (mass) at a rate of
3.0 EPNdB per halving of weight (mass) down to 89 EPNdB, after which
the limit is constant. Figure K4 illustrates the takeoff noise limit as
a solid line.
    (b) At the Flyover path reference point: For a tiltrotor having a
maximum certificated takeoff weight (mass) of 176,370 pounds (80,000
kg) or more, in VTOL/Conversion mode, 108 EPNdB, decreasing linearly
with the logarithm of the tiltrotor weight (mass) at a rate of 3.0
EPNdB per halving of weight (mass) down to 88 EPNdB, after which the
limit is constant. Figure K4 illustrates the flyover noise limit as a
dashed line.
    (c) At the approach flight path reference point: For a tiltrotor
having a maximum certificated takeoff weight (mass) of 176,370 pounds
(80,000 kg) or more, in VTOL/Conversion mode, 110 EPNdB, decreasing
linearly with the logarithm of the tiltrotors weight (mass) at a rate
of 3.0 EPNdB per halving of weight (mass) down to 90 EPNdB, after which
the limit is constant. Figure K4 illustrates the approach noise limit
as a dash-dot line.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA13.010

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Section K5 Trade-Offs

    If the noise evaluation measurement exceeds the noise limits
described in K4 of this appendix at one or two measurement points:
    (a) The sum of excesses must not be greater than 4 EPNdB;
    (b) The excess at any single point must not be greater than 3
EPNdB; and
    (c) Any excess must be offset by the remaining noise margin at the
other point or points.

Section K6 Noise Certification Reference Procedures

    K6.1 General Conditions
    (a) [Reserved]
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) The takeoff, flyover and approach reference procedures must be
established in accordance with sections K6.2, K6.3 and K6.4 of this
appendix, except as specified in section K6.1(d) of this appendix.
    (d) If the design characteristics of the tiltrotor prevent test
flights from being conducted in accordance with section K6.2, K6.3 or
K6.4 of this appendix, the applicant must revise the test procedures
and resubmit the procedures for approval.
    (e) The following reference atmospheric conditions must be used to
establish the reference procedures:
    (1) Sea level atmospheric pressure of 2,116 pounds per square foot
(1,013.25 hPa);
    (2) Ambient air temperature of 77[emsp14][deg]Fahrenheit (25 [deg]
Celsius, i.e. ISA + 10 [deg]C);
    (3) Relative humidity of 70 percent; and
    (4) Zero wind.
    (f) For tests conducted in accordance with sections K6.2, K6.3, and
K6.4 of this appendix, use the maximum normal operating RPM
corresponding to the airworthiness limit imposed by the manufacturer.
For configurations for which the rotor speed automatically links with
the flight condition, use the maximum normal operating rotor speed
corresponding with the reference flight condition. For configurations
for which the rotor speed can change by pilot action, use the highest
normal rotor speed specified in the flight manual limitation section
for the reference conditions.
    K6.2 Takeoff Reference Procedure. The takeoff reference flight
procedure is as follows:
    (a) A constant takeoff configuration must be maintained, including
the nacelle angle selected by the applicant;
    (b) The tiltrotor power must be stabilized at the maximum takeoff
power corresponding to the minimum

installed engine(s) specification power available for the reference
ambient conditions or gearbox torque limit, whichever is lower. The
tiltrotor power must also be stabilized along a path starting from a
point located 1,640 feet (500 m) before the flight path reference
point, at 65 ft (20 m) above ground level;
    (c) The nacelle angle and the corresponding best rate of climb
speed, or the lowest approved speed for the climb after takeoff,
whichever is the greater, must be maintained throughout the takeoff
reference procedure;
    (d) The rotor speed must be stabilized at the maximum normal
operating RPM certificated for takeoff;
    (e) The weight (mass) of the tiltrotors must be the maximum takeoff
weight (mass) as requested for noise certification; and
    (f) The reference takeoff flight profile is a straight line segment
inclined from the starting point 1,640 feet (500 m) before to the
center noise measurement point and 65 ft (20 m) above ground level at
an angle defined by best rate of climb and the speed corresponding to
the selected nacelle angle and for minimum specification engine
performance.
    K6.3 Flyover Reference Procedure. The flyover reference flight
procedure is as follows:
    (a) The tiltrotor must be stabilized for level flight along the
centerline flyover flight path and over the noise measurement reference
point at an altitude of 492 ft (150 m) above ground level;
    (b) A constant flyover configuration selected by the applicant must
be maintained;
    (c) The weight (mass) of the tiltrotor must be the maximum takeoff
weight (mass) as requested for noise certification;
    (d) In the VTOL/Conversion mode:
    (1) The nacelle angle must be at the authorized fixed operation
point that is closest to the shallow nacelle angle certificated for
zero airspeed;
    (2) The airspeed must be 0.9VCON and
    (3) The rotor speed must be stabilized at the maximum normal
operating RPM certificated for level flight.
    K6.4 Approach Reference Procedure. The approach reference procedure
is as follows:
    (a) The tiltrotor must be stabilized to follow a 6.0 degree
approach path;
    (b) An approved airworthiness configuration in which maximum noise
occurs must be maintained;
    (1) An airspeed equal to the best rate of climb speed corresponding
to the nacelle angle, or the lowest approved airspeed for the approach,
whichever is greater, must be stabilized and maintained; and
    (2) The tiltrotor power during the approach must be stabilized over
the flight path reference point, and continue as if landing;
    (c) The rotor speed must be stabilized at the maximum normal
operating RPM certificated for approach;
    (d) The constant approach configuration used in airworthiness
certification tests, with the landing gear extended, must be
maintained; and
    (e) The weight (mass) of the tiltrotor at landing must be the
maximum landing weight (mass) as requested for noise certification.

Section K7 Test Procedures

    K7.1 [Reserved]
    K7.2 The test procedures and noise measurements must be conducted
and processed to yield the noise evaluation measure designated in
section K2 of this appendix.
    K7.3 If either the test conditions or test procedures do not comply
to the applicable noise certification reference conditions or
procedures prescribed by this part, the applicant must apply the
correction methods described in section H36.205 of Appendix H of this
part to the acoustic test data measured.
    K7.4 Adjustments for differences between test and reference flight
procedures must not exceed:
    (a) For takeoff: 4.0 EPNdB, of which the arithmetic sum of delta 1
and the term -7.5 log (QK/QrKr) from delta 2 must not in total exceed
2.0 EPNdB;
    (b) For flyover or approach: 2.0 EPNdB.
    K7.5 The average rotor RPM must not vary from the normal maximum
operating RPM by more than 1.0 percent throughout the 10
dB-down time interval.
    K7.6 The tiltrotor airspeed must not vary from the reference
airspeed appropriate to the flight demonstration by more than 5 kts (9 km/h) throughout the 10 dB-down time
interval.
    K7.7 The number of level flyovers made with a head wind component
must be equal to the number of level flyovers made with a tail wind
component.
    K7.8 The tiltrotor must operate between 10 degrees from
the vertical or between 65 feet (20 m) lateral
deviation tolerance, whichever is greater, above the reference track
and throughout the 10 dB-down time interval.
    K7.9 The tiltrotor altitude must not vary during each flyover by
more than 30 ft (9 m) from the reference
altitude throughout the 10 dB-down time interval.
    K7.10 During the approach procedure, the tiltrotor must establish a
stabilized constant speed approach and fly between approach angles of
5.5 degrees and 6.5 degrees throughout the 10 dB-down time interval.
    K7.11 During all test procedures, the tiltrotor weight (mass) must
not be less than 90 percent and not more than 105 percent of the
maximum certificated weight (mass). For each of the test procedures,
complete at least one test at or above this maximum certificated weight
(mass).
    K7.12 A tiltrotor capable of carrying external loads or external
equipment must be noise certificated without such loads or equipment
fitted
    K7.13 The value of VCON used for noise certification
must be included in the approved Flight Manual.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 21, 2012.
Michael P. Huerta,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-00111 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28370-28371]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC12-10-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-545); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
currently approved information collection, Gas Pipeline Rates: Non-
Formal, FERC-545.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due July 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC12-10-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Non-Formal.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0154.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-545 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The FERC-545 information collection applies to filings
made pursuant to the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \1\

and the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) \2\ by regulated entities. The
filings enable the Commission to monitor the activities and to evaluate
transactions of regulated entities. Additionally, these filings allow
customers and interested parties to monitor, participate, and influence
pipeline tariff changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717c-717o, Public Law 75-688, 52 Stat. 822 and
830.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 3393, Public Law 95-621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: Entities regulated pursuant to the NGA and
NGPA.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\ The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

                             FERC-545 (IC12-10-000): Gas Pipeline Rates: Non-Formal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                    Average burden     Estimated
                                     Number of     responses per   Total number      hours per     total annual
                                    respondents     respondent     of responses      response         burden
                                             (A)             (B)     (A) x (B) =             (D)       (C) x (D)
                                                                             (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General (e.g. Tariff                         164               7           1,148              40          45,920
 modifications resulting from
 Commission orders).............
Standard Rate Case Issues (e.g.               15               2              30           7,500         225,000
 Compliance, Cost of Service)...
Reports (Informational Filings).              47               2              94              12           1,128
Negotiated Rates................              57               7             399              12           4,788
Non-Conforming Agreements.......              50               3             150              12           1,800
NAESB (Tariff Only).............              82               2             164              40           6,560
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         285,196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is
$19,681,266 [285,196 hours / 2,080 \4\ hours/year = 137.11346 *
$143,540/year \5\ = $19,681,266].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 2080 hours/year = 40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year.
    \5\ Average annual salary per employee in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: May 7, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11578 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2437-2440]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00396]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways
(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on
the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities
listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to
calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance

and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the
floodplain management measures that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Location and case    Chief executive officer of                                                                         Community
  State and county           No.                    community                 Community map repository             Date of modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Yavapai     Unincorporated       Mr. Craig L. Brown,           Yavapai County Development Services   Nov. 30, 2020................       040093
 (FEMA Docket No.:    areas of Yavapai     Chairman, Yavapai County      Department, 1120 Commerce Drive,
 B-2052).             County (20-09-       Flood Control, District       Prescott, AZ 86305.
                      0368P).              Board of Directors, 1015
                                           Fair Street, Prescott, AZ
                                           86305.
Arkansas:            City of              The Honorable Lioneld         City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street,  Dec. 7, 2020.................       050216
 Washington (FEMA     Fayetteville (19-    Jordan, Mayor, City of        Fayetteville, AR 72701.
 Docket No.: B-       06-3968P).           Fayetteville, 113 West
 2054).                                    Mountain Street,
                                           Fayetteville, AR 72701.
Colorado:
    Adams (FEMA      City of Westminster  The Honorable Herb Atchison,  City Hall, 4880 West 92nd Avenue,     Nov. 27, 2020................       080008
     Docket No.: B-   (19-08-0665P).       Mayor, City of Westminster,   Westminster, CO 80031.
     2052).                                4880 West 92nd Avenue,
                                           Westminster, CO 80031.
    Adams (FEMA      Unincorporated       The Honorable Emma Pinter,    Adams County Development Services     Nov. 27, 2020................       080001
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Adams       Chair, Adams County Board     Department, Engineering Division,
     2052).           County (19-08-       of Commissioners, 4430        4430 South Adams County Parkway,
                      0665P).              South Adams County Parkway,   1st Floor, Suite W2000, Brighton,
                                           5th Floor, Suite C5000A,      CO 80601.
                                           Brighton, CO 80601.
    Jefferson (FEMA  City of Westminster  The Honorable Herb Atchison,  City Hall, 4800 West 92nd Avenue,     Dec. 4, 2020.................       080008
     Docket No.: B-   (20-08-0053P).       Mayor, City of Westminster,   Westminster, CO 80031.
     2059).                                4800 West 92nd Avenue,
                                           Westminster, CO 80031.
Florida:
    Broward (FEMA    City of Coral        Mr. Frank Babinec, Manager,   City Hall, 9500 West Sample Road,     Nov. 30, 2020................       120033
     Docket No.: B-   Springs (20-04-      City of Coral Springs, 9500   Coral Springs, FL 33065.
     2054).           1557P).              West Sample Road, Coral
                                           Springs, FL 33065.
    Monroe (FEMA     Unincorporated       The Honorable Heather         Monroe County Building Department,    Nov. 30, 2020................       125129
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Monroe      Carruthers, Mayor, Monroe     2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 300,
     2054).           County (20-04-       County Board of               Marathon, FL 33050.
                      1572P).              Commissioners, 500
                                           Whitehead Street, Suite
                                           102, Key West, FL 33040.
    Monroe (FEMA     Unincorporated       The Honorable Heather         Monroe County Building Department,    Nov. 30, 2020................       125129
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Monroe      Carruthers, Mayor, Monroe     2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 300,
     2054).           County (20-04-       County Board of               Marathon, FL 33050.
                      3363P).              Commissioners, 500
                                           Whitehead Street, Suite
                                           102, Key West, FL 33040.
    Monroe (FEMA     Unincorporated       The Honorable Heather         Monroe County Building Department,    Dec. 7, 2020.................       125129
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Monroe      Carruthers, Mayor, Monroe     2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 300,
     2054).           County (20-04-       County Board of               Marathon, FL 33050.
                      3364P).              Commissioners, 500
                                           Whitehead Street, Suite
                                           102, Key West, FL 33040.
    Pasco (FEMA      Unincorporated       The Honorable Mike Moore,     Pasco County Administration           Nov. 27, 2020................       120230
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Pasco       Chairman, Pasco County        Building, 8731 Citizens Drive, New
     2052).           County (20-04-       Board of Commissioners,       Port Richey, FL 34654.
                      0554P).              8731 Citizens Drive, New
                                           Port Richey, FL 34654.

    Sarasota (FEMA   Unincorporated       The Honorable Michael A.      Sarasota County Planning and          Dec. 3, 2020.................       125144
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Sarasota    Moran, Chairman, Sarasota     Development Services Department,
     2054).           County (20-04-       County Board of               1001 Sarasota Center Boulevard,
                      3149P).              Commissioners, 1660           Sarasota, FL34240.
                                           Ringling Boulevard,
                                           Sarasota, F4034236.
Massachusetts:       Town of Nantucket    The Honorable Dawn E. Hill    Planning and Land Use Services        Nov. 27, 2020................       250230
 Nantucket (FEMA      (20-01-0466P).       Holdgate, Chair, Town of      Department, 2 Fairgrounds Road,
 Docket No.: B-                            Nantucket Board of            Nantucket, MA 02554.
 2052).                                    Selectmen, 16 Broad Street,
                                           Nantucket, MA 02554.
Mississippi: Panola  Unincorporated       The Honorable Cole Flint,     Panola County Land Development        Dec. 3, 2020.................       280125
 (FEMA Docket No.:    areas of Panola      President, Panola County      Commission, 245 Eureka Street,
 B-2054).             County (20-04-       Board of Supervisors, 151     Batesville, MS 38606.
                      1139P).              Public Square, Batesville,
                                           MS 38606.
North Carolina:      Town of Sandyfield   The Honorable Garry Keaton,   Town Hall, 1795 Woodyard Road,        Dec. 7, 2020.................       370644
 Columbus (FEMA       (20-04-3325P).       Mayor, Town of Sandyfield,    Riegelwood, NC 28546.
 Docket No.: B-                            1795 Woodyard Road,
 2054).                                    Riegelwood, NC 28546.
Oklahoma: Tulsa      City of Tulsa (20-   The Honorable G.T. Bynum,     Engineering Services Department,      Nov. 30, 2020................       405381
 (FEMA Docket No.:    06-0535P).           Mayor, City of Tulsa, 175     2317 South Jackson Avenue, Suite S-
 B-2052).                                  East 2nd Street, Tulsa, OK    310, Tulsa, OK 74107.
                                           74103.
Texas:
    Dallas (FEMA     City of Dallas (20-  The Honorable Eric Johnson,   Water Utilities Department, 312 East  Dec. 7, 2020.................       480171
     Docket No.: B-   06-1597P).           Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500   Jefferson Boulevard, Room 307,
     2054).                                Marilla Street, Suite 5EN,    Dallas, TX 75203.
                                           Dallas, TX 75201.
    Hood (FEMA       Unincorporated       The Honorable Ron,            Hood County Development and           Dec. 3, 2020.................       480356
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Hood        Massingill, Hood County       Compliance Department, 1402 West
     2054).           County (20-06-       Judge, 100 East Pearl         Pearl Street, Suite 2, Granbury, TX
                      2645P).              Street, Granbury, TX 76048.   76048.
Utah: Cache (FEMA    City of Hyrum (20-   The Honorable Stephanie       City Hall, 60 West Main Street,       Dec. 2, 2020.................       490017
 Docket No.: B-       08-0206P).           Miller, Mayor, City of        Hyrum, UT 84319.
 2054).                                    Hyrum, 60 West Main Street,
                                           Hyrum, UT 84319.
Virginia:
    Loudoun (FEMA    Town of              The Honorable Kwasi Fraser,   Planning and Zoning Department, 221   Dec. 7, 2020.................       510231
     Docket No.: B-   Purcellville (20-    Mayor, Town of                South Nursery Avenue, Purcellville,
     2059).           03-0501P).           Purcellville, 221 South       VA 20132.
                                           Nursery Avenue,
                                           Purcellville, VA 20132.
    Loudoun (FEMA    Unincorporated       Mr. Tim Hemstreet, Loudon     Loudoun County Office of Mapping and  Dec. 7, 2020.................       510090
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Loudoun     County Administrator, P.O.    Geographic Information, 1 Harrison
     2059).           County (20-03-       Box 7000, Leesburg, VA        Street, Southeast, Leesburg, VA
                      0501P).              20177.                        20175.
    Prince William   Unincorporated       Mr. Christopher E. Martino,   Prince William County Department of   Dec. 3, 2020.................       510119
     (FEMA Docket     areas of Prince      Prince William County         Public Works, 5 County Complex
     No.: B-2052).    William County (20-  Executive, 1 County Complex   Court, Prince William, VA 22192.
                      03-0070P).           Court, Prince William, VA
                                           22192.
Wyoming: Teton       Unincorporated       The Honorable Natalia         Teton County Public Works             Dec. 3, 2020.................       560094
 (FEMA Docket No.:    areas of Teton       Macker, Chair, Teton County   Department, 320 South King Street,
 B-2054).             County (19-08-       Board of Commissioners,       Jackson, WY 83001.
                      1023P).              P.O. Box 3594, Jackson, WY
                                           83001.
Texas:
    Gillespie (FEMA  City of              The Honorable Gary            City Hall, 126 West Main Street,      Nov. 19, 2020................       480252
     Docket No.: B-   Fredericksburg (19-  Neffendorf, Mayor, City of    Fredericksburg, TX 78624.
     2054).           06-2756P).           Fredericksburg, 126 West
                                           Main Street,
                                           Fredericksburg, TX 78624.
    Johnson (FEMA    City of Burleson     The Honorable Ken Shetter,    City Hall, 141 West Renfro Street,    Nov. 23, 2020................       485459
     Docket No.: B-   (19-06-3252P).       Mayor, City of Burleson,      Burleson, TX 76028.
     2052).                                141 West Renfro Street,
                                           Burleson, TX 76028.
    Montgomery       City of Conroe (19-  The Honorable Toby Powell,    City Hall, 300 West Davis Street,     Nov. 12, 2020................       480484
     (FEMA Docket     06-2853P).           Mayor, City of Conroe, P.O.   Conroe, TX 77301.
     No.: B-2052).                         Box 3066, Conroe, TX 77305.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Colleyville  The Honorable Richard         City Hall, 100 Main Street,           Nov. 12, 2020................       480590
     Docket No.: B-   (20-06-1166P).       Newton, Mayor, City of        Colleyville, TX 76034.
     2049).                                Colleyville, 100 Main
                                           Street, Colleyville, TX
                                           76034.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Mansfield    Mr. Clayton Chandler,         Geographic Information Systems (GIS)  Nov. 9, 2020.................       480606
     Docket No.: B-   (20-06-0705P).       Manager, City of Mansfield,   Department, 1200 East Broad Street,
     2052).                                1200 East Broad Street,       Mansfield, TX 76063.
                                           Mansfield, TX 76063.
Utah: Grand (FEMA    Unincorporated       The Honorable Mary McGann,    Grand County Courthouse, 125 East     Nov. 13, 2020................       490232
 Docket No.: B-       areas of Grand       Chair, Grand County           Center Street, Moab, UT 84532.
 2052).               County (20-08-       Council, 125 East Center
                      0298P).              Street, Moab, UT 84532.

Virginia:            City of Fairfax (20- Mr. Robert A. Stalzer,        Public Works Department, 10455        Nov. 16, 2020................       515524
 Independent City     03-0228P).           Manager, City of Fairfax,     Armstrong Street, Fairfax, VA
 (FEMA Docket No.:                         10455 Armstrong Street,       22030.
 B-2052).                                  Room 316, Fairfax, VA
                                           22030.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-00396 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39582-39584]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14345]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0516]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Dragon Boat Races; Maumee River;
Toledo, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation controlling movement of vessels for certain waters of the
Maumee River. This action is necessary and is intended to ensure safety
of life on navigable waters to be used for a rowing event immediately
prior to, during, and immediately after this event. This regulation
requires vessels to maintain a minimum speed for safe navigation and
maneuvering.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m.
on June 18, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will
be used on June 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0516 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. You may also visit
the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email Petty Officer Brett Kreigh, Marine
Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

II. Background History and Regulatory Information

    On June 18, 2016, Partners In Education is holding an organized
Dragon Boat Race event that will take place on the Maumee River in
which participants paddle Hong Kong style Dragon Boats on the Maumee
River in Toledo, OH. Due to the projected amount of human-powered
watercraft on the water, there is a need to require vessels in the
affected waterways to maintain a minimum speed for safe navigation. The
Rowing regatta will occur between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016.
This event is taking place under the same sponsorship in the same
location as last year.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231, 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1. Having reviewed the application for a marine
event submitted by the sponsor on February 22, 2016, the Captain of the
Port Detroit (COTP) has

determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels,
commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close
proximity to a rowing regatta along the water pose extra and unusual
hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is
establishing a Special Local Regulation around the event location to
help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to this rule because waiting for a notice and comment period to
run would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest. Although an initial marine event application was submitted on
February 22, 2016, final details regarding event area and patrol
parameters were not known to the Coast Guard with sufficient time for
the Coast Guard to solicit public comments before the start of the
event. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability
to protect the public from the hazards associated with this rowing
regatta.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

IV. Discussion of Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 6
a.m. until 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016. In light of the aforementioned
hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is
necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. This
special local regulation will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of
the Maumee River, Toledo, OH, bound by a line extending from a point on
land just north of the Cherry Street Bridge at position
41[deg]39'5.27'' N.; 083[deg]31'34.01'' W. straight across the river
along the Cherry Street bridge to position 41[deg]39'12.83'' N.;
083[deg]31'42.58'' W. and a line extending from a point of land just
south of International Park at position 41[deg]38'46.62'' N.;
083[deg]31'50.54'' W. straight across the river to the shore adjacent
to position 41[deg]38'47.37'' N.; 083[deg]32'2.05'' W. (NAD 83).
    An on-scene representative of the COTP or event sponsor
representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race
activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on
any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement vessel assigned to
patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the
regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain
permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative
may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the
public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means,
including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders (E.O.).

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O.
13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require
an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
E.O. 12866 or under section 1 of E.O. 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues.
    The Coast Guard's use of this special local regulation will be of
relatively small size and only twelve hours in duration, and it is
designed to minimize the impact on navigation. Moreover, vessels may
transit through the area affected by this special local regulation at a
minimum speed for safe navigation. Overall, the Coast Guard expects
minimal impact to vessel movement from the enforcement of this special
local regulation.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    As per the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, as amended, we have considered the potential impact of regulations
on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in this portion of the Maumee River, in the vicinity
of Toledo, OH between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016.
    This special local regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited
in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the
enforcement of the regulation, Coast Guard Sector Detroit will issue a
local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can
plan accordingly.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them. If this rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against entities
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.

D. Collection of Information

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

E. Federalism

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

F. Protest Activities

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

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

H. Taking of Private Property

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

I. Civil Justice Reform

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

J. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an
economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk
to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect
children.

K. Indian Tribal Governments

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

L. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under E.O.
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use.

M. Technical Standards

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

N. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation and
is therefore categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T09-0516 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T09-0516  Special Local Regulation; Dragon Boat Races;
Maumee River; Toledo, OH.

    (a) Regulated area. A regulated area is established to encompass
the following waterway: all waters of the Maumee River, bound by a line
extending from a point on land just north of the Cherry Street Bridge
at position 41[deg]39'5.27'' N.; 083[deg]31'34.01'' W. straight across
the river along the Cherry Street bridge to position 41[deg]39'12.83''
N.; 083[deg]31'42.58'' W. and a line extending from a point of land
just south of International Park at position 41[deg]38'46.62'' N.;
083[deg]31'50.54'' W. straight across the river to the shore adjacent
to position 41[deg]38'47.37'' N.; 083[deg]32'2.05'' W. (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective period. This rule will be enforced from 6 a.m. until
6 p.m. on June 18, 2016.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Consistent with Sec.  100.901 of this part,
vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake
speed and remain vigilant at all times. Additionally, vessels within
the regulated area must yield right-of-way for event participants and
event safety craft. Commercial vessels will have right-of-way over
event participants, and event safety craft.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to operate in the regulated area must
contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so.
The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or his on-scene representative
may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission
to operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions
given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local
law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the COTP to act on
his behalf.

    Dated: 10 June 2016.
Raymond Negron,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2016-14345 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P