GLOBAL CHANGE MID-CYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE

FACE-TO-FACE MEETING

DRAFT AGENDA

January 23, 2008

M Street Renaissance Hotel

1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20037

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

8:30-9:00 a.m.	Registration

9:00-9:10 a.m.	Welcome and Outline of Purpose	Dr. Milton Russell

Chair, Global Change Mid-Cycle   Subcommittee

          	9:10-9:20 a.m.               DFO Welcome	Monica Rodia (EPA)

	   	- Administrative Procedures/FACA	DFO, Global Change Mid-Cycle

		Rules	Subcommittee

9:20-9:30 a.m.	Summary of Progress: Key Themes	Dr. Joel Scheraga,

		and Moving Forward	Office of Research and Development

9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.	Subcommittee Discussion 	Global Change Mid-Cycle 	 Subcommittee

	12:00-1:00 p.m.		Lunch

	1:00-2:20 p.m.		Subcommittee Discussion	Global Change Mid-Cycle 						 Subcommittee

	2:20-2:30 p.m.		Public Comment

	2:30-3:00 p.m.		Wrap-up and Report Out	Global Change Mid-Cycle 						 Subcommittee

	3:00 p.m.		Adjourn

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   2

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register: May 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29565]
[DOCID:fr29my07-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55790; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Modify the Distributor Fee
for Nasdaq Index Weighting Information

May 21, 2007.
    On April 4, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to decrease
the distributor fee for the lowest pricing tier for Nasdaq Index
Weighting Information. According to Nasdaq, the lowest pricing tier is
the most common option selected by existing customers. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April
18, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55620 (April 12,
2007), 72 FR 19569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange \4\
and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\
which requires, among other things, that Nasdaq's rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which Nasdaq operates or controls, and that it not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Nasdaq
proposes to decrease the distributor fee for the tier that encompasses
one to 500 subscribers for Nasdaq Index Weighting Information from
$1,000 to $300 in the case of unlimited frequency of distribution, and
from $500 to $275 in the case of distribution once a month, quarter, or
year. The remaining tiers of the fee schedules for Nasdaq Index
Weighting Information (i.e., fees for 501-999, 1,000-4,999, 5,000-
9,999, and 10,000+ subscribers) will not change under this proposal.
The Commission believes that decreasing the distributor fee for the
lowest pricing tier for Nasdaq Index Weighting Information is
beneficial to the recipients of such data and should encourage its
broader distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2007-039) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10207 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 6993]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2020-08]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Delta
Engineering

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before February 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0917
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on January 31, 2020.
Mary A. Schooley,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0917
    Petitioner: Delta Engineering
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.853(a) and (d)
    Description of Relief Sought: Allow the installation of large-panel
cabin-interior materials, as they pertain to maximum heat release
rates, in a Boeing 787-8 airplane.
[FR Doc. 2020-02314 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Appendix B

Decision Document:

Approval of Fort Peck Tribes

Application for Program Approval

Under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act

U.S. EPA Region 8

August 29, 1996

	TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	Introduction

A.	Purpose

B.	Application

C.	Chronology of events

II.	Requirements for Program Approval

A.  Federal recognition

B.  Substantial governmental duties and powers

C.  Jurisdiction over "waters within the borders" of the Fort Peck
Reservation

D.  Capability

III.	Conclusions

IV.	Appendix.  Factual Analysis of Finding:  Direct Effects on Ft. Peck
Tribal Health and Welfare that are Serious and Substantial may Result
from Surface Water Pollution Sources on Non-Indian Owned Fee Lands

I.	Introduction

A.	Purpose:  The purpose of this decision document is to provide the
basis and supporting information for EPA's decision to approve the March
24, 1994 application of the Fort Peck Tribes (Tribes) to administer
Section 303(c) (water quality standards program) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA).  The approval applies to the administration of the water quality
standards program for waters that lie within the exterior borders of the
Fort Peck Reservation.

B. 	Application:  The Tribes' Application to administer Section 303(c)
of the CWA consists of two documents:

1)	the Tribe's initial request for program approval, dated March 24,
1994; and

2)	the Tribe's supplemental letter of April 12, 1995.

C.	Chronology of Events

1.	March 24, 1994 - CWA § 303(c) water quality standards program
application by the Fort Peck Tribes.

2.	October 14, 1994 - Letter from Deb Madison, Fort Peck Tribes, to Bill
Wuerthele, EPA Region VIII Water Quality Branch, providing a map of the
reservation and a copy of the Tribes' nonpoint source assessment
document.

3.	January 30, 1995 - Letter from Dale Vodehnal, EPA Region VIII, Water
Quality Branch Chief, to Caleb Shields, Chairman, Fort Peck Executive
Board, providing an update on the Region's review of the Tribe's CWA §
303(c) program application.

4.	April 3, 1995. - Letter from Dale Vodehnal, EPA Region VIII, Water
Quality Branch Chief, to Caleb Shields, Chairman, Fort Peck Executive
Board, requesting clarification of the Tribes' request with respect to
the assertion of authority for border rivers and creeks.

5.	April 12, 1995 - Letter from Caleb Shields, Chairman, Fort Peck
Executive Board, to Dale Vodehnal, EPA Region VIII, Water Quality Branch
Chief, clarifying the Tribes' application with respect to the assertion
of authority for border rivers and creeks.

6.	May 9, 1995 - Letters to "appropriate governmental entities" from
William  Yellowtail, Regional Administrator, EPA Region VIII, requesting
comments on the Fort Peck Tribes assertion of authority:

a.	Honorable Marc Racicot, Governor of Montana

b.	William Berg, Charles Russell National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service

c.	Richard Whitesell, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

d.	John Morton, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

e.	Dale Harms, Montana-Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service

7.	May 21, 24, and 26, 1995.  Publication of Notice for Fort Peck
Tribes' CWA § 303(c) program application (The Billings Gazette, State
of Montana, County of Yellowstone).

8.	June 7, 1995.  Letter from Martin Kellar, Operations Division, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, to David Moon, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Water
Quality Branch, requesting an additional 20 days to review the Fort Peck
Tribes assertion of authority (the request was granted via a phone
call).

9.	June 16, 1995, Letter from Robert J. Robinson, Director, Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, to William Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region VIII, providing comments on the Fort
Peck Tribes' assertion of authority, and including as enclosures, a June
1, 1995 letter from Claudia Massman, DHES Counsel, to Bill Engle, Region
VIII Montana Operations Office, and a December 19, 1990 letter from
Harley R. Harris, Montana Assistant Attorney General, to Stanley
Speakes, Portland Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs.

10.	June 19, 1995.  Letter from Keith Beantusk, Area Director, U.S.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, to David Moon, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Water
Quality Branch, endorsing the Fort Peck Tribes' water quality standards
program application.

11.	June 26, 1995.  Letter from Mary E. Dills, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, to William Yellowtail, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
VIII, supporting the Fort Peck Tribes' water quality standards program
application.

12.	June 19, 1996.  Letter from Bill Engle, EPA Region VIII Montana
Operations Office, to Steve Pilcher, Director, Montana Water Quality
Control Division, providing information pertaining to the Fort Peck
Tribes' application.

II.	Requirements for Program Approval:    Under Section 518(e) of the
CWA and EPA's implementing regulation at 40 CFR Section 131.8 four
requirements must be satisfied before EPA can approve a tribe's
application to administer a water quality standards program under
Section 303(c).  These are:  (1) The Indian Tribe is recognized by the
Secretary of the Interior and meets the definitions in Section 131.3(l);
(2) The Indian Tribe has a governing body carrying out substantial
governmental duties and powers;  (3) The water quality standards program
to be administered by the Indian Tribe pertains to the management and
protection of water resources which are within the borders of the Indian
reservation and held by the Indian Tribe, within the borders of the
Indian reservation and held by the United States in trust for Indians,
within the border of the Indian reservation and held by a member of the
Indian Tribe if such property interest is subject to a trust restriction
on alienation, or otherwise within the borders of the Indian
reservation; and (4) The Indian Tribe is reasonably expected to be
capable, in the Regional Administrator's judgment, of carrying out the
functions of an effective water quality standards program in a manner
consistent with the terms and purposes of the Act and applicable
regulations.

A.  Federal Recognition:  The Fort Peck Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation are recognized by the U.S. Department of the Interior (58
Fed. Reg. 54364, October 21, 1993).

B.  Substantial Governmental Duties and Powers:  Analysis under 40 CFR
Section 131.8(a)(2).  The Agency is satisfied that the Fort Peck Tribes
of the Fort Peck Reservation have a tribal government currently carrying
out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defined area and
that the Tribes have met the requirements imposed by 40 CFR Section
131.8(a)(2) for treatment as a state under Section 303 of the CWA.

On December 14, 1994, EPA published a final regulation that simplified
the process by which Indian Tribes may qualify for treatment in the same
manner as States for purposes of various environmental programs under
the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act programs
(see 59 Fed. Reg. 64339).  One of the changes was that, if a Tribe has
been previously determined by EPA under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, or Safe Drinking Water Act to meet the "federal recognition" and
"substantial duties and powers" requirements, these requirements do not
have to be evaluated for any subsequent program applications.  The Fort
Peck Tribes have previously been determined by EPA to meet these
requirements.

C.  Jurisdiction over "waters within the borders" of the Fort Peck
Reservation:  Analysis under 40 C.F.R. Section 131.8(a)(3).

The Agency is satisfied that the Fort Peck Tribes (Tribes) of the Fort
Peck Reservation have adequate jurisdiction to set water quality
standards for waters within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation
and have adequately demonstrated that they meet the requirements imposed
by 40 C.F.R. Section 131.8(a)(3) for program approval under Section
303(c) of the CWA (CWA).

Background:  40 C.F.R. Section 131.8(a)(3) requires that "the water
quality standards program to be administered by the Indian Tribe
pertains to the management and protection of water resources which
are...within the borders of the Indian reservation."  The program for
which the Tribes are applying pertains to the management and protection
of water resources which are within the borders of the Fort Peck
Reservation, and this approval is limited to waters within the borders
of the Reservation.

It should be noted that EPA is not today determining the scope of the
Tribes' regulatory enforcement authority for all purposes.  EPA is today
finding that the Tribes have sufficient authority to determine the water
quality standards for the Reservation.  While the Tribes may, in an
independent action, enforce tribal water quality standards, an EPA
approved water quality standards program need not be implemented through
enforcement in tribal court.  For example, EPA may issue federal permits
under Section 402 of the CWA, based upon tribal water quality standards.
 Such permits would then be enforced in federal court.

The Tribes' assertion of civil regulatory jurisdiction within the Fort
Peck Reservation is contained in two documents: (1)  the Tribe's initial
request for program approval, dated March 24, 1994, and (2) the Tribe's
supplemental letter of April 12, 1995.

These documents were forwarded to the State of Montana, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for comment on the Tribes'
jurisdictional assertions, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Section 131.8(c)(2).
These entities responded on June 7 and June 26, 1995 (COE), June 16,
1995 (Montana), and June 19, 1995 (BIA).

The Montana Operations Office of EPA Region 8 also published, on three
separate occasions, a local newspaper notice of the Tribes' application,
inviting the public to submit comments through the State of Montana.  No
public comments were forwarded to EPA by the State or included as
attachments to the State's letter of June 16, 1995.

Tribal Jurisdiction:	Having reviewed the jurisdictional assertions of
the Tribes and the comments received from other Federal Agencies and the
State of Montana, the Agency has determined that the Tribes have
demonstrated adequate jurisdiction to establish water quality standards
within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Reservation.

Tribal authority over Reservation lands other than fee lands owned by
non-tribal members.  With regard to Reservation lands other than fee
lands owned by non-tribal members, the Agency finds that the Fort Peck
Tribes clearly have adequate jurisdiction to establish water quality
standards.  Indeed, the State of Montana only contests the Tribes'
assertion of authority over lands owned in fee by non-tribal members.

Tribal authority over Reservation lands owned in fee by non-tribal
members.

Standard:  In the preamble to the amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Regulation, published on December 12, 1991 at 56 Fed. Reg.
64876, the Agency set forth its analysis of the scope of inherent tribal
authority over reservation lands owned in fee by non-members.  In that
discussion, the Agency considered relevant case law, including Montana
v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) and Brendale v. Confederated
Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (1989), and elected
to adopt an "interim operating rule" (56 Fed. Reg. at 64878-79) for
determining, on a case by case basis, whether an Indian Tribe has
authority over reservation lands owned in fee by non-members (fee
lands).

The operating rule is based on the finding in Montana that "a tribe may
also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct
of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct
threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the
economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."  Montana, 450
U.S. at 565-66.  The operating rule requires a further showing that the
"potential impacts of regulated activities on the tribe are serious and
substantial." 56 Fed. Reg. at 64878.

The State of Montana's comments did not provide data pertaining to the
Tribes' assertions that impairment of waters on reservation fee lands
may have effects on the health and welfare of the Tribes that are
serious and substantial.  Since the Tribes' submittal met the initial
requirement imposed on them by the regulation, the State's submittal
should have presented any available data demonstrating that impairment
of waters by activities on fee lands would not have potential effects on
the health and welfare of the Tribes that are serious and substantial.
56 Fed. Reg. 64879.  EPA carefully evaluated the State's submission and
determined that the State did not provide information that would cause
the Agency to conclude that the Tribes' assertions were unsupported.

The State contended that it had no opportunity to submit facts
contesting the Tribes' assertion.  However, as provided by the
regulation, the State was provided notice as to the substance of the
Tribes' assertion of authority and was given thirty days within which to
submit information sufficient to establish a competing or conflicting
claim under the applicable regulation.  40 CFR Section 131.8 (c)(2)-(4).
 The State did not submit such information.

Accordingly, having considered the information the State submitted, EPA
has concluded:  (1) that the Tribes have demonstrated that they possess
the requisite regulatory jurisdiction, and (2) that the State has not
established that the Tribes lack jurisdiction.

The State also asserts that the jurisdictional test established in the
preamble to the regulation is not proper.  EPA does not agree.

The State's position is that EPA should apply the general rule
established in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), that the
Tribes lack jurisdiction on fee lands and the exceptions to that rule
apply only in "narrow, fact-based circumstances."  In fact, EPA's
operating rule, established and discussed at 56 Fed. Reg. 64878-79, was
based upon the principles set forth in the Montana case.  In adopting
its operating rule, the Agency reviewed the Supreme Court's decision in
Brendale v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Nation, 492 U.S.
408 (1989) and determined that the holding of the Court in Brendale was
consistent with the Montana test.  In the subsequent Supreme Court
opinion in South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S., 113 S. Ct. 2309 (1993),
the Court remanded a portion of the case pertaining to jurisdiction over
non-member activities on fee lands to the District Court for
consideration under the Montana rule.  The Agency has determined that
the Bourland opinion is thus consistent with the Court's Montana and
Brendale decisions and with the Agency's 1991 analysis.  The Agency also
believes that the exceptions to the Montana rule, allowing tribal
jurisdiction where there is potential for direct impacts on tribal
health and welfare, are appropriately applied in this case.  In
addition, it should be noted that the Agency operating rule asks Tribes
to show that the impacts required by the Montana rule be more than de
minimis; in fact, the Agency rule asks that these impacts be "serious
and substantial."

The Tribes also contend that the CWA delegates authority for approved
Tribes to regulate water quality for all sources within the exterior
boundaries of the Reservation and that the CWA preempts the State from
regulating water quality within the Reservation.  The Tribes' position
is based on language in the Act authorizing approval of a tribal program
for functions "within the borders of an Indian reservation," 33 U.S.C.
Section 1377(e)(2), and defining a Reservation as "all land within the
limits of any Indian reservation ... notwithstanding the issuance of any
patent."  33 U.S.C. Section 1377(h)(1).

EPA regulations governing reservation water quality standards do not
construe the CWA as delegating authority to Tribes over all reservation
sources, or as preempting State regulation.  56 Fed. Reg. 64880.
Nevertheless those regulations do explicitly request each Tribe "to
outline all bases for concluding that the Tribe has adequate authority"
to set water quality standards on the reservation, noting that such a
discussion "can only help EPA to make a proper determination" as the
appropriateness of approving the tribal water quality standards program.
 56 Fed. Reg. 64881.  The portion of the tribal submission discussing
delegation and preemption complies with the Agency's explicit request in
this regard, and is therefore appropriate for consideration.  To the
extent the Tribes' position is correct, it would provide support for
EPA's determination.

Finding:  EPA finds that existing and future activities on fee lands
within the exterior borders of the Fort Peck Reservation have potential
direct impacts on the health and welfare of the Tribes and their members
that are serious and substantial.  The facts upon which the Agency has
based this finding are set forth in the Appendix.

In making its finding, the Agency has relied on its special expertise
and practical experience regarding the importance of water management,
recognizing that clean water, including critical habitat (i.e.,
wetlands, spawning beds, etc.) may be crucial to the survival of the
Fort Peck Reservation.

Based upon its special expertise and practical experience, the Agency
also believes that the activities regulated under the CWA generally have
impacts on human health and welfare that are serious and substantial.
As discussed at 56 Fed. Reg. 64878, this finding is consistent with our
belief that the CWA itself constitutes, in effect, a legislative
determination that activities which affect surface water quality and
critical habitat quality may have impacts on human health and welfare
that are serious and substantial.

Additionally, the Agency is mindful that, because of the mobile nature
of pollutants in surface waters and the relatively close proximity of
stream segments on fee and trust lands within the Fort Peck Reservation,
it would be practically very difficult to separate out the effects of
water quality impairment on fee lands within the Reservation from those
on tribal portions.  In other words, it is highly probable that any
impairment occurring on, or resulting from activities on, fee lands will
impair the water and critical habitat quality of the tribal lands.
Similarly, the serious and substantial effects of water quality
impairment within the non-member portions of the Reservation are very
likely to affect the tribal interest in water quality.

EPA also believes that Congress has expressed a preference for tribal
regulation of surface water quality to ensure compliance with the goals
of the CWA (see 56 Fed. Reg. at 64878-79).  EPA interprets Section 518
of the CWA, in providing for the treatment of Indian Tribes as States
under Section 303 of the Act, as authorizing Tribes to assume a primary
role in setting water quality standards on reservations.  A checkerboard
system of regulation, whereby the Tribe and State split up regulation of
surface water quality on the reservation, would ignore the difficulties
of assuring compliance with water quality standards when two different
sovereign entities establish standards for closely intermixed stream
segments.  56 Fed. Reg. 64878.

The generalized findings regarding the relationship of water quality to
tribal health and welfare affect the legal analysis of the Tribes'
submission by, in effect, supplementing the Agency's factual findings
contained in the Appendix.  In accordance with 56 Fed. Reg. at 64879,
the Tribes have made a showing of facts that there are waters within the
Reservation used by the Tribes or tribal members (and thus that the
Tribes or tribal members could be subject to exposure to pollutants
present in, or introduced into, those waters) and that the waters and
critical habitat of the Reservation are subject to protection under the
CWA.  The Tribes have also asserted that impairment of such waters by
the activities of non-members would have an effect on the health and
welfare of the Tribes that is serious and substantial.  Based upon the
facts available to the Agency from the Tribes and other sources, as
presented in the Appendix, and in light of the generalized statutory and
factual findings discussed above, the Agency believes that the Tribes
have demonstrated that the protection of water quality sought to be
carried out by setting water quality standards for water on fee lands on
the Fort Peck Reservation would protect against potential impacts on
tribal health and welfare that are serious and substantial.

Thus, the Agency believes that the Tribes have successfully demonstrated
adequate authority to establish water quality standards within the Fort
Peck Reservation and that the Tribes have met the requirements of 40
C.F.R. Section 131.8(a)(3).

D.  Capability:  The Fort Peck Tribes have demonstrated that they are
reasonably capable of establishing and implementing a water quality
standards program that will

comport with the requirements of the CWA.  This finding is based on
information submitted with the Fort Peck application and other available
information.

The Tribes have been administering a water quality management program
under CWA § 106 since 1989.  The Tribes monitor their surface waters
for chemical, physical, and biological parameters consistent with an
EPA-approved quality assurance/quality control project plan.  Further,
the Tribes have completed a nonpoint source assessment report and
management plan which EPA has found to be a technically-sound evaluation
of current nonpoint source problems.  The assessment report will be
useful in addressing nonpoint sources on the reservation.  Although the
Tribes have not yet completed draft water quality standards, EPA finds
that the staff has the technical capability to develop appropriate
standards regardless of the development option selected (at this point,
it is believed that tribal staff favor modeling their standards after
those adopted by Montana).

Consistent with 40 CFR Section 131.8(a)(4), EPA therefore finds more
than a reasonable expectation that the Fort Peck Tribes will be capable
of carrying out the functions of an effective water quality standards
program in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the Act
and applicable regulations.

III.	Conclusions:	The Agency has determined that the Fort Peck Tribes of
the Fort Peck Reservation have met the requirements of 40 CFR Section
131.8.  The Agency approves the Tribes' request to administer Section
303(c) of the CWA.

		Signed August 29, 1996

__________________________________

Jack W. McGraw

Acting Regional Administrator

EPA Region VIII

	Appendix

EPA finds that existing and future activities on fee lands within the
exterior borders of the Fort Peck Reservation have potential direct
impacts on the health and welfare of the Tribes and tribal members that
are serious and substantial.

A.	BASIS FOR FINDING

1.	Role of Water Quality Standards in Protecting Human Health and
Welfare.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or CWA) of 1972
and subsequent amendments call for the maintenance and restoration of
the physical, chemical and biological integrity of our nation's waters.
The quality of water above and within the stream or lake bed and the
deposition of materials from the water column have a direct affect on
this goal.

Under the CWA, the integrity of our nation's waters is affected by, and
protected through application of, water quality standards.  Water
quality standards consist of a designated use or uses for surface waters
of the United States, water quality criteria that protect such uses, and
an antidegradation policy.  Uses which must be designated for protection
include, but are not restricted to, domestic water supply, fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agriculture,
industrial and other purposes including navigation.  States and Tribes
may also develop their water quality standards to protect unique
cultural, religious, or ceremonial uses.  Implementation of water
quality standards affects human health and welfare in the following
ways:

•	Protection of domestic water supplies ensures that human health will
be directly protected from disease and from exposure to toxic materials
at acute or chronic levels.  This protection is basic to human health
and welfare.

•	Protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife uses assures that
aquatic ecosystems will function to cycle energy, aid in the
detoxification of contaminants and provide the diversity and
productivity of aquatic life.  These functions, in turn, enable
aesthetic, educational/scientific, recreational, and food goals to be
achieved.  The full protection of aquatic life uses also helps ensure
economic welfare through harvest of fish and other aquatic life and
encouragement of water-based recreation businesses.  Protection of
wildlife uses helps assure that birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians
that use and depend upon surface waters as a source of water, food, or
habitat will maintain the species diversity and productivity that they
are capable of.  Protection of wildlife that serve as a food source
provides protection from toxins that can accumulate in wildlife.

•	Protection of recreation uses in and on the water affects human
welfare by allowing full body contact during play and sport without
undue threat of disease or loss of aesthetic pleasure.

•	Protection of agricultural uses promotes economic welfare by
safeguarding the abundance and quality of crops and protecting human
health through control of toxic contaminants that can accumulate in
crops.

•	Protection of industrial and navigation uses helps assure economic
welfare through control of contaminants that may be costly to industrial
or navigation uses through corrosion or interference with industrial
processes.

•	Antidegradation requirements protect all existing uses of surface
waters regardless of whether such uses are actually designated in water
quality standards.  Antidegradation requirements also serve to maintain
and protect the quality of high quality waters and waters that
constitute an outstanding national resource.  Antidegradation
requirements can be utilized by Tribes and States to maintain and
protect the quality of surface waters that provide unique cultural,
religious, or ceremonial uses.

2.	Relationship of Non-member Owned Fee Lands to Tribal Lands and
Waters.

The information below discusses the relationship of non-member owned fee
lands on the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation to tribal lands and the waters
on tribal lands.  A primary source of information used in preparing this
discussion is the 1994 "Fort Peck Tribes Non Point Source Assessment
Plan", prepared by the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Office of
Environmental Protection.

The Fort Peck Indian Reservation is located in northwestern Montana's
glaciated plains and is bound by the Missouri River on the south, the
Milk River and Porcupine Creek to the west, Big Muddy Creek on the east,
and on the north by 48 degrees 38 minutes north latitude.  Most boundary
streams headwater in Canada, the exception being the Missouri which
headwaters in southwestern Montana.

The reservation's population consists of about 52% Indians and 48%
non-Indians.   Agriculture is the primary economic activity for both
sectors of the population.  The reservation is comprised of 45% trust
and allotted land and 55% fee land.  Land use on the reservation is
dominated by agriculture, specifically cattle grazing and small grain
dryland farming.  Of the fee lands (a large majority of which are owned
by non-Indians), about 780,000 acres are used as rangeland and about
510,000 acres are used as cropland (based on the Fort Peck Tribes Air
Quality Emission Inventory, 1989, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs Land
Status Report, 1993).

The reservation is located in the Missouri River basin.  Four major
drainages transverse the reservation in a northwesterly to southeasterly
direction, and all drain into the Missouri River.  Because land
ownership is very significantly "checkerboarded", with Indian and
non-Indian lands interspersed throughout the reservation, any current or
future contamination of surface waters as a result of activities on
non-Indian owned fee lands will very likely be transported downstream to
waters on tribal lands.  This finding is based on the patterns of land
ownership, land uses, and location of surface waters on the reservation.
 For example, a significant portion of non-Indian owned fee lands are
located upstream of tribal lands.  Further, as noted above, over one
million acres of fee lands on the reservation are used for agricultural
purposes (e.g., rangeland, cropland).  Thus, pollution sources entering
surface waters on non-Indian lands (e.g., as a result of agricultural
practices) are likely to affect, to some degree, the quality of
downstream tribal waters, and may potentially interfere with tribal uses
of such waters, as discussed in detail below.

3.	Types of Surface Water Quality Problems Potentially Caused or
Exacerbated by Pollution Sources on Non-member Owned Fee Lands.

Activities on non-member owned fee lands may potentially cause or
contribute to various general categories of surface water quality
problems and may potentially create direct effects on the health and
welfare of tribal members that are serious and substantial.  The
following provides an overview of some of the major categories of water
quality problems and briefly discusses how each could seriously and
substantially influence the health and welfare of tribal members.  Note
that the discussion below is intended to provide general examples of
current or future water quality problems that could potentially occur on
the Fort Peck Indian reservation as a result of various human activities
on non-member owned fee lands.

•	Turbidity and Sediment.  Agricultural practices on non-member owned
fee lands have the potential to increase water turbidity, sediment
transport in the water column, and deposition of sediments on stream and
lake bottoms.  Increased loadings of sediment can result from irrigated
or dryland farming and from improper grazing practices that can reduce
streambank vegetation and accelerate streambank erosion.  Turbidity and
fine sediments can negatively affect aquatic life in tribal waters by
reducing photosynthesis of plant life, by interfering with sight feeding
of fish, by smothering fish eggs and insect life, and by reducing the
habitat available for food organisms and spawning of fish.

The result of increased turbidity and sediment deposition can be a lower
growth rate of fish from loss of food resources and/or elimination or
significant reduction of spawning success in streams.  Fish populations
in both the streams and the lakes to which they are tributary may
decline.  Such problems may impair tribal recreational uses of surface
waters and reduce current or future use of fisheries as a food source.

•	Herbicides and Pesticides.  Agricultural runoff from non-member
owned fee lands has the potential to increase loadings of herbicides and
pesticides.  Depending on the concentrations, these loadings may cause
direct mortality or reduction of growth and reproduction in fish and
invertebrates.  Tribal members may also face potential health risks from
exposure to herbicides and pesticides present in fish flesh or drinking
water taken from tribal waterbodies or from ingestion of wildlife that
feed upon aquatic plants or animals in tribal waterbodies.

•	Flow Diversion.  Diversion of flows for agricultural uses on
non-member owned fee lands can result in effects on water quality and
the integrity of aquatic communities by increasing stream temperatures
and by the loss of physical habitat for fish and other life.  Increased
stream temperatures may exceed levels necessary for optimum growth,
cause direct mortality, or prevent successful fish spawning and
survival.  Application of irrigation waters to saline soils may result
in leaching of salts back to rivers, thereby increasing salinity and
dissolved solids and potentially interfering with downstream uses
including water supply, irrigation, and livestock watering.

•	Nutrients.  Agricultural runoff from non-member owned fee lands has
the potential to significantly increase loadings of nutrients to surface
waters.  Increases in loading of nutrients (primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds) can result due to both irrigation and
precipitation.  These nutrients can stimulate undesirable increased
growth of vegetation in lakes or streams.  High concentrations of
phytoplankton (microscopic plants) or larger plants are known to result
in undesirable changes in water quality on a daily or seasonal basis.
For example, excessive vegetation may result in very low levels of
dissolved oxygen during dark hours when photosynthesis does not occur
but respiration continues.  Stimulation of plant growth from excessive
nutrients may result in low dissolved oxygen and fish kills during
winter periods.  Excess nitrate in drinking water may cause
methemoglobinemia or "blue baby syndrome" in infants, a potentially
fatal toxic effect.

High nutrient levels may also encourage a shift in the types of
phytoplankton found in lakes and ponds, encouraging the blue-green algae
typical of eutrophic (over-enriched) waters.  This may result in a less
desirable food source for zooplankton, production of plant toxins, and
seasonal low dissolved oxygen concentrations.

•	Metals.  Agricultural runoff from non-member owned fee lands has the
potential to increase loadings of metals to surface waters.  Increased
loadings of metals can also result from historical, current, or future
mining activities.  Dissolved and particulate

metals can pose risks to aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural, and water
supply uses.

•	Ammonia, Chlorine and BOD.  Increases in loadings of ammonia,
chlorine and oxygen-demanding substances (BOD) may result from point
source discharges from current or future wastewater treatment plants on
non-member owned fee lands.  Because rather small shifts in pH and
temperature can significantly increase the toxicity of ammonia, effects
of discharges on the growth and survival of aquatic life may occur far
downstream from discharges.  Ammonia and its breakdown products

may also serve as nutrients for excessive plant growth and as sources
of oxygen demand, which can lower oxygen levels in tribal waters.

Chlorine has direct toxicity to aquatic life at very low levels and may
directly affect the growth, reproduction and survival of aquatic life.

Increases in BOD loading can result in reduced oxygen levels, which
affects aquatic life survival, growth, and productivity.

•	Toxic Chemicals.  A wide variety of human activities on non-member
owned fee lands can potentially result in toxic substances entering
surface waters and interfering with tribal uses of such waters.
Examples include use of household cleaning products, automobile
maintenance, street cleaning and maintenance, landfills, and industrial
activities such as manufacturing and mining.  Toxic pollutants resulting
from such activities may enter surface waters directly following a
precipitation event or through municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Surface water pollution resulting from such activities can potentially
interfere with aquatic life, recreational, water supply, and
agricultural waterbody uses.

•	Fecal Contamination.  Fecal contamination of tribal waters can
result from point source discharges from current or future wastewater
treatment plants on non-member owned fee lands that discharge into
tribal waters.  Fecal contamination of tribal waters can potentially
also occur from on-site treatment systems (e.g., septic tanks).  Fecal
coliform bacteria are indicators of health risks resulting from human
waste, and diseases may pass to human populations that drink, bathe, or
otherwise come in contact with tribal waters so contaminated.

4.	Examples of Current Water Quality Problems On the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation.

The following discussion provides information regarding current known
water quality problems on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.  Based on
known population, land ownership, and land use statistics (discussed
above in section 2), it is very likely that activities on non-member
owned fee lands either cause or contribute to many of these current
water quality problems.

(a)	Point Sources.

There are currently two discharging facilities with MPDES permits on
the reservation (i.e., Wolf Point and Brockton) that discharge directly
into the Missouri River (personal communication with Fred Shewman,
Montana Water Quality Bureau, January 11, 1995).  Poplar is another
community on the reservation that has been issued an MPDES permit; that
facility discharges directly into the Poplar River (personal
communication with Bill Engle, EPA Montana Operations Office).  A review
of the EPA Permit Compliance System for these three point sources
indicated that none of the three had any permit limit violations for the
period of July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1995 (personal communication with
Bill Engle, EPA Montana Operations Office).  It is not known whether
there are unpermitted point source discharges to surface waters or
whether, in the future, new point source discharges will occur.  In
general, although there is no evidence suggesting current water quality
problems as a result of point source discharges, such problems could
arise in the future.

(b)	Nonpoint Sources.

Except where noted, the source of these examples is the 1994 "Fort Peck
Tribes Non Point Source Assessment Plan", prepared by the Fort Peck
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Office of Environmental Protection.  The
Tribes' nonpoint source assessment was produced by assembling data from
many sources including the Tribes' physical, chemical, and biological
monitoring of reservation surface waters.  The tribal biological
monitoring program was initiated in 1991; chemical monitoring of
reservation waters has been ongoing since 1979.  For waters where
monitoring data were not available, the report includes assessment
information based on other information including best professional
judgment.  Based on all of the available information, the report found
that over 300 reservation stream miles were severely or moderately
impaired.  The information presented below provides drainage-specific
examples of current surface water quality problems on the reservation.
These examples are illustrative and not comprehensive.  For a more
complete discussion refer to the Tribes' nonpoint source assessment.

a)	Porcupine-Milk River Drainage

This drainage is located on the west side of the reservation.  Existing
land uses are predominantly rangeland, dryland crop agriculture and
limited irrigated lands.  The dryland crop agriculture use is
characterized by strip fallow operations and associated saline seeps
common to the northern great plains.  Land ownership is a mix of fee
title, allotted, trust and tribal lands.  A total of fifty stream miles
in this drainage were identified as moderately impaired.  Identified
causes of impairment included grazing, streambank erosion, and
irrigation.  Parameters for which exceedences of Montana water quality
criteria were found included total ammonia, boron, iron, sodium,
phosphorus, specific conductance, and temperature.

b)	Little Porcupine-Wolf Creek-Tule Creek Drainage

The Little Porcupine-Wolf Creek-Tule Creek drainage is located within
the west-central portion of the reservation.  The largest urban center
on the reservation is located at the confluence of the drainage and the
Missouri River.  Other land use is predominantly rangeland.  Land
ownership is a combination of fee title, allotted, trust, and tribal
lands.  Wolf Creek is one of two salmonid fisheries on the reservation.
A total of 30 stream miles in this drainage were identified as severely
impaired, while 60 stream miles were identified as moderately impaired.
Identified causes of impairment included lowered dissolved oxygen,
grazing and streambank erosion.  Parameters for which exceedences of
Montana water quality criteria were found included boron, cadmium, lead,
iron, sodium, phosphorus, manganese, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, specific conductance, and ammonia.

c)	Poplar Drainage

This drainage is contained within the east-central portion of the
reservation.  A major urban center is located at the mouth of the
drainage.  Other land use is predominantly rangeland.  Land ownership is
a mix of fee title, allotted, trust, and tribal lands.  The Poplar River
is one of two salmonid fisheries on the reservation.  A total of
seventy-eight stream miles were identified as moderately impaired.
Identified causes of impairment included grazing, streambank erosion,
dryland crops, and the East Poplar Oilfield Unit.  Increased chloride
loadings have been documented in the Poplar River as it flows through
the East Poplar Oilfield; contaminated groundwater has been linked to
these increased loadings.  The East Poplar Oilfield unit is located on
lands with mixed ownership:  some are allotted lands owned by tribal
members and some are fee title lands (personal communication with Debi
Madison, Fort Peck Tribes, March 28, 1996). Dissolved solids such as
chloride can interfere with drinking water, aquatic life, wildlife, and
agricultural uses.  Parameters for which exceedences of Montana water
quality criteria were found included temperature, dissolved oxygen,
specific conductance, sediment, temperature, iron, lead, manganese,
boron, nitrite, sodium, phosphorus, and pH.

d)	Big Muddy Drainage

The Big Muddy drainage is the eastern border of the reservation.  Land
use is predominantly rangeland.  A total of eighty-four stream miles
were identified as moderately impaired.  Identified causes of impairment
included grazing, dryland crops, irrigation, channelization, and
wastewater.  The source of the "wastewater" is the Medicine Lake
discharge to the Big Muddy, which is now a containment lagoon and no
longer a discharging facility (personal communication with Deb Madison,
Ft. Peck Tribes, January 11, 1995).  Parameters for which exceedences of
Montana water quality criteria were found included ammonia, iron, lead,
boron, temperature, specific conductance, pH, sediment, cadmium,
manganese, phosphorus, sodium, and dissolved oxygen.

B.	Finding

EPA finds that existing and future activities on fee lands within the
exterior borders of the Fort Peck Reservation have potential direct
impacts on the health and welfare of the Tribes and tribal members that
are serious and substantial.  The establishment of water quality
standards by the Tribes will enable the Tribes to set appropriate water
quality goals to aid in avoiding these potential impacts.

  PAGE   14


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78299-78303]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0708; Amendment No. 91-334; SFAR No. 114]
RIN 2120-AK61

Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Damascus (OSTT)
Flight Information Region (FIR)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Immediately adopted final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action prohibits certain flight operations in the
Damascus (OSTT) Flight Information Region (FIR) by all U.S. air
carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges
of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a
U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of
U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign
air carriers. The FAA previously prohibited such flight operations in a
Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 4/4936, which was issued on August 18, 2014,
and absent this rule, would have remained in effect until December 31,
2014. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) adopts the
prohibitions currently in effect via the NOTAM, and requires compliance
with the prohibitions for 2 years from the date of publication of this
final rule, unless the FAA determines that it is necessary to amend or
rescind this rule based on the situation in the region. The FAA finds
that this action is necessary to address a potential hazard to persons
and aircraft engaged in such flight operations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 30, 2014, and remains
in effect through December 30, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions about this
action, contact Will Gonzalez, Air Transportation Division, AFS-220,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact: Robert
Frenzel, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to
dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency
for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' In this instance,
the FAA finds that notice and public comment to this immediately
adopted final rule, as well as any delay in the effective date of this
rule, are contrary to the public interest due to the immediate need to
address the potential hazard to civil aviation that exists in the OSTT
FIR, as described in the Background section of this final rule.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the United
States and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered
civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The
FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49
of the U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), describes the authority
of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section
40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the
public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and
enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air
commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise
his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government
under international agreements.
    This SFAR is promulgated under the authority described in Title 49,
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, General requirements.
Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe
flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other
things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and
procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security. This regulation is within the scope of
that authority because it prohibits certain flight operations in the
OSTT FIR due to the potential hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in
such flight operations that is described in the ``Background'' section
of this final rule.

I. Overview of Immediately Adopted Final Rule

    This action prohibits certain flight operations in the OSTT FIR, by
all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising
the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons
are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators
are foreign air carriers. The FAA previously prohibited such flight
operations in FDC NOTAM 4/4936, which was issued on August 18, 2014.
This action incorporates that prohibition into the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). The FAA finds this action necessary to address a
potential hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight
operations, as described below.

II. Background

    Due to the ongoing armed conflict and volatile security environment
in Syria, the FAA has serious concerns regarding potential hazards to
U.S. civil flight operations in the OSTT FIR. A number of armed
extremist groups are known to be equipped with a variety of anti-
aircraft weapons that have the capability to threaten civil aircraft.
These groups have successfully shot down Syrian military aircraft and
have previously warned civil air carriers against providing service to
Syria. Due to the presence of these weapons, threats made by the
extremist groups, and ongoing fighting throughout Syria involving
various forms of weaponry used by various groups, as well as military
fighter aircraft used by the Syrian Air Force, the FAA believes there
is a significant threat to U.S. civil aviation operating in the OSTT
FIR at any altitude.
    On August 18, 2014, in response to the potentially hazardous
situation created by the armed conflict in Syria, the FAA issued FDC
NOTAM 4/4936, which prohibited flight operations in the OSTT FIR by all
U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the
privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are
operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators
are foreign air carriers. In addition, on September 23, 2014, the
President announced that U.S. and allied forces had begun airstrikes
against the Islamic State in

Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) targets in Syria and that U.S. forces had
also conducted airstrikes to disrupt plotting against the U.S. and its
allies by the Khorasan Group. These airstrikes represent a further
hazard to U.S. civil aviation operations in the OSTT FIR. This
rulemaking incorporates the flight prohibition contained in FDC NOTAM
4/4936 into the CFR.
    The FAA will continue to actively evaluate the situation to
determine to what extent U.S. civil operators may be able to safely
operate in the OSTT FIR. Amendments to this SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609, may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security
changes. Thus, the FAA may amend or rescind this SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609, as necessary prior to its expiration date.
    Because the circumstances described herein warrant immediate action
by the FAA, I find that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
Further, I find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for
making this rule effective immediately upon publication. I also find
that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49
U.S.C. 40105 to ensure that I exercise my duties consistently with the
obligations of the United States under international agreements.

Approval Based on Authorization Request of an Agency of the United
States Government

    If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government
determines that it has a critical need to engage any person covered
under this final rule, including any U.S. air carrier or U.S.
commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or
military passengers or cargo, that department, agency, or
instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons covered under
this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, to conduct such operations. An
approval request must be made to the FAA in a letter signed by an
appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality of the U.S. Government. The letter must be sent to the
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1), Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may
request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the
approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an
electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request
approval from the FAA for multiple persons covered under this SFAR No.
114, Sec.  91.1609 and/or for multiple flight operations. To the extent
known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be covered
under this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609 and on whose behalf the U.S.
Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA
approval to conduct operations in the OSTT FIR. The letter must
describe--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
mission being supported;
     The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by
this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609;
     To the extent known, the specific locations in the OSTT
FIR where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted; and
     The method by which the department, agency, or
instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise
obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the
operator will integrate this information into all phases of its
proposed operations (e.g., pre-mission planning and briefing, in-
flight, and post-flight).
    The request for approval must also include a list of operators with
whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality
requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or
cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s))
for specific flight operations in the OSTT FIR. Additionally, such
operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA
approval is issued. Updated lists should be sent to the email address
to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If an approval request includes classified information, requestors
may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Will Gonzalez for instructions on
submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.
    FAA approval of an operation under this SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their
responsibility to comply with all applicable FAA rules and regulations.
Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their
certificates and Operations Specifications (OpSpecs). Operators must
also comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government
departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operations,
including, but not limited to, the Transportation Security Regulations
issued by the Transportation Security Administration, Department of
Homeland Security.

Approval Conditions

    If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety
Organization (AVS) will send an approval letter to the requesting
department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's
approval is subject to all of the following:
    (1) Any approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions
that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator,
while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational
objectives.
    (2) Any approval will indicate that the operation is not eligible
for coverage under any premium war risk insurance policy issued by the
FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.\1\ Each such policy
excludes coverage for any aircraft operations that are intentionally
conducted into or within geographic areas prohibited by an SFAR, such
as this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609. The exclusion specified in the
policy will remain in effect as long as this SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609, remains in effect, notwithstanding the issuance of any
approval under, or exemption from, this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609
(the chapter 443 premium war risk insurance policy refers to such
approval as a ``waiver'' and such exemption as an ``exclusion'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If and when, in connection with an operator's contract with
a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government, an
operation is covered by a non-premium war risk insurance policy
issued by FAA under 49 U.S.C. 44305, coverage under that operator's
FAA premium war risk insurance policy is suspended as a condition
contained in that premium policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to
the FAA a written release of the U.S. Government (including, but not
limited to, the United States of America, as Insurer) from all damages,
claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and
expenses, and the operator's agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government
(including, but not limited to, the United States of America, as
Insurer) with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and
liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses,
relating to any event arising from or related to the approved
operations in the OSTT FIR. The release and agreement to indemnify do
not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-
premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443.

    (4) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that
may be imposed in OpSpecs.
    If the proposed operation or operations is or are approved, the FAA
will issue OpSpecs to the certificate holder authorizing the operation
or operations, and will notify the department, agency, or
instrumentality that requested FAA approval of civil flight operations
to be conducted by one or more persons described in paragraph (a) of
this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, of any additional conditions beyond
those contained in the approval letter. The requesting department,
agency, or instrumentality must have a contract, grant, or cooperative
agreement (or its prime contractor must have a subcontract) with the
person(s) described in paragraph (a) of this SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609, on whose behalf the department, agency, or instrumentality
requests FAA approval.

Request for Exemptions

    Any operation not conducted under the approval process set forth
above must be conducted under an exemption from this SFAR No. 114,
Sec.  91.1609. A request by any person covered under this SFAR for an
exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11, and will require exceptional
circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process set
forth above. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81,
the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA, at a
minimum--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
operation;
     The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by
this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609;
     The specific locations in the OSTT FIR where the proposed
operation(s) will be conducted; and
     The method by which the operator will obtain current
threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will
integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations
(e.g., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-
flight phases).
    Additionally the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to
above, will be required as a condition of any exemption issued under
this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609. The FAA recognizes that operations
that may be affected by this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, may be
planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the
U.S. Government. While these operations will not be permitted through
the approval process, the FAA will process exemption requests for such
operations on an expedited basis and prior to processing any private
exemption requests.

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

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-
354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to analyze
the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
Chapter 13), prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements 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 (Public Law 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 a 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 (DOT) Order 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost 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 to 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 SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, prohibits flight operations by
persons described in paragraph (a) in the OSTT FIR due to the
significant hazards to civil aviation described in the Background
section of this preamble. This regulation incorporates the prohibition
on flight operations originally issued by the FAA in FDC NOTAM 4/4936
into the CFR. The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC) prohibits, except as otherwise authorized, the
exportation, re-exportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly,
from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located,
of any services to Syria. See 31 CFR 542.207. Consequently, the FAA
assumes that, immediately prior to the issuance of FDC NOTAM 4/4936 on
August 18, 2014, there were few, if any, persons who would be subject
to paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, flying into and out of
Syria. OFAC's Syrian Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR part 542) do not
prohibit overflights of Syria. The FAA surveyed U.S. operators of large
transport category airplanes (four part 121 operators and two part 125M
operators) who had previously reported conducting regular overflights
in the OSTT FIR. All six operators recently reported that they had
voluntarily ended their OSTT FIR overflights in March 2011 due to the
onset of hostilities in Syria. Thus, these six operators ceased their
operations in the OSTT FIR before the FAA issued FDC NOTAM 4/4936 on
August 18, 2014. Approximately 15 ``on-demand'' large carriers (part
121 and part 121/135) previously indicated that they had performed
overflights in the OSTT FIR and about 75 small ``on-demand'' operators
(parts 135, 125, 125M, and 91K) previously indicated that they had
flown into and out of Syria or conducted overflights in the OSTT FIR.
However, because of the OFAC sanctions and the ongoing conflict, the
FAA believes that few, if any, of these small operators were operating
in the OSTT FIR immediately prior to the issuance of FDC NOTAM 4/4936
on August 18, 2014. Accordingly, the incremental costs of this rule are
minimal.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this final rule is
a ``significant regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, because it raises novel policy issues
contemplated under that Executive Order. The rule is also
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The final rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade, and will not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector.

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, ``RFA''), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance
that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives 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 this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' 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 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 RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
RFA Sec.  605(b) provides that the head of the agency may so certify
and a regulatory flexibility analysis will not be required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, because of OFAC sanctions and the ongoing conflict,
as well as the voluntary cessation of operations by large transport
category carriers, the FAA believes that few, if any, small U.S.
operators operated in the OSTT FIR prior to the issuance of FDC NOTAM
4/4936. The FAA believes all operators who are small entities do not
intend to land or overfly Syria while this rule is in effect.
Therefore, as provided in Sec.  605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

B. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39. 19 U.S.C. Chapter
13), as amended, 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 this Act, 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 its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil
aviation from a potential hazard outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule
is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act, as amended.

C. 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
(in 1995 dollars) 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 $151.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) 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 immediately adopted final rule.

E. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (the ``Chicago Convention''), it is FAA
policy to conform to International Civil Aviation (``ICAO'') Standards
and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA
has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices that correspond to this proposed regulation.

F. 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 (``NEPA'') (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 55) in the absence of
extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking
action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph
312(f) of FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
    The FAA has reviewed the implementation of the proposed SFAR and
determined it is categorically excluded from further environmental
review according to FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures,'' paragraph 312(f). The FAA has examined
possible extraordinary circumstances and determined that no such
circumstances exist. After careful and thorough consideration of the
proposed action, the FAA finds that the proposed Federal action does
not require preparation of an EA or EIS in accordance with the
requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and
FAA Order 1050.1E.

IV. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' The
agency has 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.

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

    The FAA analyzed this immediately adopted 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 the executive order, and it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to

reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

V. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) Portal
(http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page: 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>.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) (Public Law 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601), as
amended, 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'' section at the beginning of the
preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Freight, Syria.

The Amendment

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

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126
Stat. 11).

0
2. In part 91, Subpart M, add new Sec.  91.1609, to read as follows:

Sec.  91.1609  Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 114--Prohibition
Against Certain Flights in the Damascus (OSTT) Flight Information
Region (FIR).

    (a) Applicability. This rule applies to the following persons:
    (1) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators;
    (2) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate
issued by the FAA, except such persons operating U.S.-registered
aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
    (3) All operators of aircraft registered in the United States,
except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
    (b) Flight prohibition. No person may conduct flight operations in
the Damascus (OSTT) Flight Information Region (FIR), except as provided
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (c) Permitted operations. This section does not prohibit persons
described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight
operations in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR, provided that such flight
operations are conducted under a contract, grant, or cooperative
agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S.
government (or under a subcontract between the prime contractor of the
department, agency, or instrumentality, and the person described in
paragraph (a)), with FAA approval, or under an exemption issued by the
FAA. The FAA will process requests for approval or exemption in a
timely manner, with the order of preference being: first, for those
operations in support of U.S. government-sponsored activities; second,
for those operations in support of government-sponsored activities of a
foreign country with the support of a U.S. government department,
agency, or instrumentality; and third, for all other operations.
    (d) Emergency situations. In an emergency that requires immediate
decision and action for the safety of the flight, the pilot in command
of an aircraft may deviate from this section to the extent required by
that emergency. Except for U.S. air carriers and commercial operators
that are subject to the requirements of parts 119, 121, 125, or 135 of
this chapter, each person who deviates from this section must, within
ten (10) days of the deviation, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
Federal holidays, submit to the nearest FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO) a complete report of the operations of the aircraft
involved in the deviation, including a description of the deviation and
the reasons for it.
    (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain in effect until December 30,
2016. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609, as necessary.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), in Washington, DC, on
December 19, 2014.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-30377 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 20881]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-17]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before May 11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0215 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Sexton,<PHONE_NUMBER>), Office
of Rulemaking (ARM-204), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 16, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0215.
    Petitioner: Gulf Aviation Doing Business as United Aviation.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 129.109, 129.111, 129.117.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner seeks relief from part
129 Sec. Sec.  129.109, 129.111, 129.117. If granted, this exemption
will allow Gulf Aviation Services to operate their fleet of Embraer
EMB-135BJ aircraft outside of the United States without implementing
the instructions for continued airworthiness into Gulf Aviation
Service's maintenance program.

[FR Doc. 2010-9135 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 69)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19143]
[DOCID:fr09ap08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29372; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-9]

Establishment of Class D Airspace; New Braunfels, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will establish Class D airspace at New Braunfels,
Texas. Establishment of an air traffic control tower at New Braunfels
Municipal Airport has made this action necessary for the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft operations at New
Braunfels Municipal Airport, New Braunfels, Texas.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Mallett, AMTI CTR, Central
Service Center, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Ft Worth, Texas, 76193-0530; at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 18, 2007, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class D airspace at New
Braunfels, Texas (72 FR 71606).
    This action would improve the safety of IFR aircraft at New
Braunfels Municipal Airport, New Braunfels, Texas. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR, part 71.1. The
Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR),
part 71 by establishing Class D airspace at New Braunfels, Texas. A new
air traffic control tower has been installed at New Braunfels Municipal
Airport, making this action necessary for the safety and management of
IFR aircraft operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at New Braunfels Municipal
Airport, New Braunfels, Texas.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (AIR).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR, part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TEXAS D New Braunfels, Texas [New]

New Braunfels Municipal Airport, Texas
    (Lat. 29[deg]42'16'' N., long. 98[deg]02'32'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of New Braunfels Municipal
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 28, 2008.
Richard H. Farrell, III,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-7094 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78601]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1052]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hackensack River, Jersey City,
NJ, Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Witt Penn Bridge at mile 3.1, across the Hackensack River, at Jersey
City, New Jersey. Under this temporary deviation a two-hour advance
notice for bridge opening will be required to facilitate bridge
repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from January 22, 2011 through
February 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1052 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1052 in the
``Keyword'' and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Witt Penn Bridge, across the Hackensack
River at mile 3.1 has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35
feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water. The existing
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723.
    The waterway has seasonal recreational vessels, and commercial
vessels of various sizes.
    The owner of the bridge, New Jersey Department of Transportation,
requested a temporary deviation to facilitate the replacement of the AC
drive motors.
    Under this temporary deviation the Witt Penn Bridge, mile 3.1,
across the Hackensack River may require a two-hour advance notice for
bridge openings from January 22, 2011 through February 18, 2011.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do
so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 2, 2010.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-31556 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P