44209706 Lai, J. ( 1997) Validation of the Extraction Efficiency of RM 12A 9 to Remove Methamidophos Residues from Lettuce: Lab Project Number: VP 11306: 9700123: V 96 11306. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 44 p.

44209707 Lai, J. ( 1997) Validation of the Extraction Efficiency of RM 12A 9 to Remove Methamidophos Residues from Milk and Goat Tissue: Lab Project Number: VP 11583: 9700056: V 96 11583. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 52 p.

44466001 Eigenberg, D.; Freshwater, K.; Lake, S. ( 1998) A Two Generation Dietary Reproduction Study in Rats Using Technical Methamidophos: Lab Project Number: 95 672 GJ: 108040. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp. 1407 p. ( Related to L0000193)

44484402 United States Environmental Protection Agency ( 1977) Biological Report of Analysis: Bluegill: Monitor 75.39%: Lab Project Number: TSD 1.206. Unpublished study. 6 p.

44484403 Product Safety Labs ( 1981) LC50 Tests with Mallard Ducks on Sodium Arsenite, Strychnine, Merphos, Monitor and Dursban: Lab Project Number: T 1861. Unpublished study. 34 p.

44484404 Thompson Cowley, L. ( 1981) Monitor LC50 Tests: Bobwhite Quail Mallard Ducks. Unpublished study prepared by Oregon State University. 36 p.

44512201 Chopade, H. ( 1998) Monitor 4 Magnitude of the Residue in Potatoes: Lab Project Number: MN19PO02: 108060: 854 MN001 96H. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp. 297 p. { OPPTS 860.1500}

44514302 Williams, B. ( 1994) Methamidophos Freezer Storage Stability Study in Potato and Tomato Processed Products: Lab Project Number: 39483: MN131601: 106442. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 258 p.

44514301 Harbin, A. ( 1998) Monitor 4 Magnitude of the Residue in Tomatoes: Lab Project Number: MN19TO03: 108061: 856 MN101 96D. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp. and Valent U. S. A. Corp. 567 p. { OPPTS 860.1500} Related to L0000320. 111 44525301 Sheets, L.; Gastner, M.; Hamilton, B. ( 1997) Repeated Dose 21 Day Dermal Toxicity Study with Technical Grade Methamidophos ( Monitor) in Rats: Lab Project Number: 96 122 KQ: 107635. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp. 238 p.

44558801 Russo, L. ( 1998) Monitor 4 Magnitude of the Residue in Cotton: Lab Project Number: MN19CT02: 108317. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp., American Agricultural Services, Inc., and GLP Program Texas A& M Univ. Food Protein Research and Development Center. 293 p. { OPPTS 860.1500} ( Relates to L0000319)

44600501 Fontaine, L. ( 1998) Supplement to MRIDs 43661001 and 43661002: Product Chemistry of Monitor Technical: Lab Project Number: TMC 43.22: BR 1967: ANR 01298. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corporation. 15 p. { OPPTS 830.1550, 830.1620, 830.1750, 830.1800}

44685501 Ellisor, G. ( 1998) Evaluation of Foliar Dislodgeable Residues of Monitor on Tomatoes: Lab Project Number: 95P002: 107246: GLP 01 16 01. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp. 254 p.

44685502 Ellisor, G. ( 1998) Evaluation of Dislodgeable Foliar Residues of Monitor ( Methamidophos) on Potatoes: Lab Project Number: 96P001: 108415: GLP 01 16 01. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Research Park. 163 p.

44685503 Willard, T. ( 1998) Dissipation of Dislodgeable Foliar Methamidophos Residues from Monitor 4 Treated Potatoes: Lab Project Number: AA970772: 108559: TM I 43.05. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. 161 p.

44815401 Astroff, A.; Eigenberg, D. ( 1998) A Two Generation Dietary Reproduction Study in Rats Using Technical Methamidophos: Supplemental: Lab Project Number: 95 672 GJ: 8398: 108040 1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corporation. 299 p.

44815402 Moore, K. ( 1999) A Two Generation Dietary Reproduction Study in Rats with Technical Grade Methamidophos ( Monitor): Supplemental: Lab Project Number: 108040 2: 8398: 95 672 GJ. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corporation. 19 p.

44815406 Lenz, C. ( 1994) Monitor 4 Magnitude of the Residues on Potato Processed Commodities: Lab Project Number: MN19P001: 101235: FCA MN004 90P. 112 Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. and The National Food Laboratory, Inc. 166 p.

Other References Human Health Risk Assessment Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 246, pp 67071 67072. December 23,1997.

HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure, Policy. 007, " Use of Values from the PHED Surrogate Table and Chemical Specific Data." Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. January, 1999.

PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide, V1.1. Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Program. August, 1998."

HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure, Policy 005, " Use of PHED data for Application by Rotary Wing Aircraft." Health Effect Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. May, 1998.

HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure, Policy 003, " Agricultural Default Transfer Coefficients" Health Effect Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. May, 1998.

HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure, Policy 006, " The Use of PHED Aerial Application Data" Health Effect Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. August, 1998.

Lotti, M., Moretto, A., Bertolazzi, M., Peraica, M, and Fioroni, F. ( 1995). Organophosphate polyneuropathy and neuropathy target esterase: studies with methamidophos and its resolved optical isomers. Arch. Toxicol. 69( 5) p 330 336.

McConnell, R., Keifer, M., and Rosenstock, L. ( 1994). Elevated quantitative vibrotactile threshold among workers previously poisoned with methamidophos and other organophosphate pesticides. Am. J. Ind. Med. 25( 3) p 325 34.

Senanayake, N. and Johnson, M. K. ( 1982). Acute polyneuropathy after poisoning by a new organophosphate insecticide. Medical Intelligence 306( 3) p 155 157.

Zheng, R. Y. ( 1990). Clinical features of delayed polyneuropathy induced by acute methamidophos toxicosis in 74 cases. Chung Hua Nei Ko Tsa Chin 29( 2) p 113 79 82.

Ecological Risk Assessment Allen, jr, B. W., M. C. Barber, S. L. Bird, L. A. Burns, J. M. Cheplick, M. J. Fendley, D. R. Hartel, C. A. Kittner, F. L. Mayer, jr., L. A. Suarez, and S. E. Wooten. 1992. PIRANHA: Pesticide and Industrial Chemical Risk Analysis and Hazard Assessment, version 3.0. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.

Bennett, R. S., R. Bentley, T. Shiroyama and J. K. Bennett. 1990. Effects of the Duration and Timing of Dietary Methyl Parathion Exposure on Bobwhite Reproduction. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9: 1473 1480.

Bennett, R. S., B. A. Williams, D. W. Schmedding and J. K. Bennett. 1990. Effects of Dietary Exposure to Methyl Parathion on Egg Laying and Incubation in mallards. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10: 501 507.

Bennett, R. S. and L. M. Ganio. 1991. Overview of Methods for Evaluating Effects of Pesticides on Reproduction in Birds. U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Environ. Res. Lab., Corvallis, OR. 106 pages.

Bertem, P. E., R. E. Chiles. Studies on the Inhalation Toxicity of Two Phosphoramidothioate Insecticides to Rodents and Quail. University of California, School of Public Health, Naval Biosciences Laboratory, Naval Supply Center, Oakland, California.

Blus, L. J., C. S. Stanley, C. J. Henny, G. W. Pendleton, T. H. Craig, E. H. Craig, D. K. Halford. 1989. Effects of organophosphorous Insecticides on Sage Grouse in Southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 53( 4): 1139 1146.

Brewer, L. W., C. J. Driver, R. J. Kendall, C. Zenier, and T. E. Lacher, Jr. 1987. The Effects of Methyl Parathion in Ducks and Duck Broods. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 7, pp. 375 379, 1988.

Burns, L. A. 1997. Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( EXAMS II): User's Guide for Version 2.97.5. Ecosystem Research Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.

Busby, D. G., L. M. White and P. A. Pearce. 1990. Effects of Aerial Spraying of Fenitrothion on 114 Breeding White Throated Sparrows. J. Appl. Ecol. 27: 743 755.

Cardozo, C. et al. 1986 present. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water; Well Inventory Database. Environmental Hazards Assessment Program, California Department of Food and Agriculture, State Water Quality Control Board.

Carsel, R. F., J. C. Imhoff, P. R. Hummel, J. M. Cheplick, and A. S. Donigan, Jr. Undated. PRZM 3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in the Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: User's Manual for Release 3.1, Draft. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.

Clarke Jr., D. R., B. A. Rattner. 1987. OrtheneR Toxicity to Little Brown Bats ( Myotis lucifugus): Acetylchlorinesterase Inhibition, Coordination Loss, and Mortality. Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. Vol 6 pp. 705 708.

Fleming 1982. Anticholinesterase Poisoning in birds: Field Monitoring and Diagnosis of Acute Poisoning. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1: 27 38 Grue, C. E. 1988. Postfledging Survival of European Starlings Exposed as Nestlings to an Organophosphorous Insecticide. Ecology 69: 590 601. 1988 Haegele, M. A. and R. K. Tucker. 1974. Effects of 15 Common Environmental Pollutants on Eggshell Thickness in Mallards and Coturnix. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11: 98 102.

Hussain, M. A., R. B. Mohamad, P. C. Oloffs. 1985. Studies on the Toxicity, Metabolism, and Anticholinesterase Properties of Acephate and Methamidophos. J. Environ. Sci. Health, B20 ( 1), p. 129 147. ( 1985).

Juarez, L. M., J. Sanchez, 1989. Toxicity of the Organophosphorous Insecticide Methamidophos ( O, S Dimethyl Phosphoramidothioate) to Larvae of the Freshwater Prawn, Macrobachium rosenbergii ( DeMan) and the Blue Shrimp, Penaeus stylirostris Stimpson. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. ( 1989) 43: 302 309.

Mineau, P. 1991. Cholinesterase Inhibiting Insecticides: Their Impact on Wildlife and the Environment.

Mullins, J. A., R. F. Carsel, J. E. Carborough, and A. M. Avery. 1993. PRZM 2 User's Manual, Version 1.0. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. 115 Neil, C. et al. 1987. Second annual report: Pesticides in ground water. Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation.

Neil, C. et al. 1989. Pilot study: Pesticides in ground water  Final report. Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation.

Smith, G. J. 1987. Pesticides Used and Technology in Relation to Wildlife: Organophosphorous and Carbamate Compounds. U. S. Fish and Wildlfe Service Resource Publication 170. 171 pp.

Rattner, B. A., D. J. Hoffman. 1984. Comparative toxicity of acephate in laboratory mice, whitefooted mice, and meadow voles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13: 483 491.

Rattner, B. A., S. D. Michael. 1985. Organophosphorous insecticide induced decrease in plasma luteinizing hormone concentration in white footed mice. Toxicology Letters, 24: 65 69.

Appendix E: Generic Data Call In 116 Appendix F: Product Specific Data Call In 117 Appendix G: EPA'S Batching of Methamidophos Products for Meeting Acute Toxicity Data Requirements for Reregistration In an effort to reduce the time, resources and number of animals needed to fulfill the acute toxicity data requirements for reregistration of products containing Methamidophos as the primary active ingredient, the Agency has batched products which can be considered similar for purposes of acute toxicity. Factors considered in the sorting process include each product's active and inert ingredients ( identity, percent composition and biological activity), type of formulation ( e. g., emulsifiable concentrate, aerosol, wettable powder, granular, etc.), and labeling ( e. g., signal word, use classification, precautionary labeling, etc.). Note the Agency is not describing batched products as " substantially similar" since some products with in a batch may not be considered chemically similar or have identical use patterns.

Using available information, batching has been accomplished by the process described in the preceding paragraph. Notwithstanding the batching process, the Agency reserves the right to require, at any time, acute toxicity data for an individual product should need arise.

Registrants of products within a batch may choose to cooperatively generate, submit or cite a single battery of six acute toxicological studies to represent all the products within that batch. It is the registrants' option to participate in the process with all other registrants, only some of the other registrants, or only their own products within in a batch, or to generate all the required acute toxicological studies for each of their own products. If the registrant chooses to generate the data for a batch, he/ she must use one of the products within the batch as the test material. If the registrant chooses to rely upon previously submitted acute toxicity data, he/ she may do so provided that the data base is complete and valid by to days standards ( see acceptance criteria attached), the formulation tested is considered by EPA to be similar for acute toxicity, and the formulation has not been significantly altered since submission and acceptance of the acute toxicity data. Regardless of whether new data is generated or existing data is referenced, the registrants must clearly identify the test material by EPA Registration Number. If more than one confidential statement of formula ( CSF) exists for a product, the registrant must indicate the formulation actually tested by identifying the corresponding CSF.

In deciding how to meet the product specific data requirements, registrants must follow the directions given in the Data Call In Notice and its attachments appended to the RED. The DCI Notice contains two response forms which are to be completed and submitted to the Agency within 90 days of receipt. The first form, " Data Call in Response, " asks whether the registrant will meet the data requirements for each product. The second form, " Requirements Status and Registrant's Response," lists the product specific data required for each product, including the standard six acute toxicity tests. A registrant who wishes to participate in a batch must decide whether he/ she will provide the data or depend on someone else to do so. If the registrant supplies the data to support a batch of products, he/ she must select the one of the following options: Developing data ( Option 1), Submitting an existing Study ( Option 4), Upgrading an existing Study ( Option 5), or Citing an Existing Study ( Option ). If a registrant depends on another's data, he/ she must choose among: Cost sharing ( Option 2), Offers to Cost Share ( Option 3) or Citing an Existing Study ( Option 6). If a registrant does not want to participate in a batch, the choices are Options 1, 4, 5 or 6. However, a registrant should know that choosing not to participate in a batch does not preclude other registrants in the batch from citing his/ her studies and offering to cost share ( Option 3) those studies. 118 Five products were found which contain Methamidophos as the active ingredient. These products have been placed into one batch and a No Batch in accordance with the active and inert ingredients and type of formulation.

Batch 1 EPA Reg. No. Percent active ingredient Formulation Type 3125 280 40.58 Solid 59639 56 40.58 Solid No Batch EPA Reg. No. Percent active ingredient Formulation Type 3125 341 74.6 Solid 3125 348 60.0 Liquid 59639 68 72.0 Solid 119 Appendix H: List of Registrants Sent DCIs 120 Appendix I: List of Available Related Documents and Electronically Available Forms Pesticide Registration Forms are available at the following EPA internet site:

http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/

Pesticide Registration Forms ( These forms are in PDF format and require the Acrobat reader)

Instructions 1. Print out and complete the forms. ( Note: Form numbers that are bolded can be filled out on your computer then printed.)

2. The completed form( s) should be submitted in hardcopy in accord with the existing policy.

3. Mail the forms, along with any additional documents necessary to comply with EPA regulations covering your request, to the address below for the Document Processing Desk.

DO NOT fax or e mail any form containing ' Confidential Business Information' or ' Sensitive Information.'

If you have any problems accessing these forms, please contact Nicole Williams at ( 703) 308 5551 or by e mail at williams. nicole@ epa. gov.

The following Agency Pesticide Registration Forms are currently available via the internet: at the following locations:

8570 1 Application for Pesticide Registration/ Amendment http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 1. pdf 8570 4 Confidential Statement of Formula http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 4. pdf 8570 5 Notice of Supplemental Registration of Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 5. pdf 8570 17 Application for an Experimental Use Permit http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 17. pdf 8570 25 Application for/ Notification of State Registration of a Pesticide To Meet a Special Local Need http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 25. pdf 8570 27 Formulator's Exemption Statement http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 27. pdf 121 8570 28 Certification of Compliance with Data Gap Procedures http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 28. pdf 8570 30 Pesticide Registration Maintenance Fee Filing http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 30. pdf 8570 32 Certification of Attempt to Enter into an Agreement with other Registrants for Development of Data http:// www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 32. pdf 8570 34 Certification with Respect to Citations of Data ( PR Notice 98 5) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 5. pdf 8570 35 Data Matrix ( PR Notice 98 5) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 5. pdf 8570 36 Summary of the Physical/ Chemical Properties ( PR Notice 98 1) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 1. pdf 8570 37 Self Certification Statement for the Physical/ Chemical Properties ( PR Notice 98 1) http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr98 1. pdf Pesticide Registration Kit www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ registrationkit/

Dear Registrant:

For your convenience, we have assembled an online registration kit which contains the following pertinent forms and information needed to register a pesticide product with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP):

1. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) as Amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996.

2. Pesticide Registration ( PR) Notices a. 83 3 Label Improvement Program Storage and Disposal Statements b. 84 1 Clarification of Label Improvement Program c. 86 5 Standard Format for Data Submitted under FIFRA d. 87 1 Label Improvement Program for Pesticides Applied through Irrigation Systems ( Chemigation) e. 87 6 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products Policy Statement f. 90 1 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products; Revised Policy Statement g. 95 2 Notifications, Non notifications, and Minor Formulation Amendments h. 98 1 Self Certification of Product Chemistry Data with Attachments ( This document is in PDF format and requires the Acrobat reader.) 122 Other PR Notices can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices 3. Pesticide Product Registration Application Forms ( These forms are in PDF format and will require the Acrobat reader).

a. EPA Form No. 8570 1, Application for Pesticide Registration/ Amendment b. EPA Form No. 8570 4, Confidential Statement of Formula c. EPA Form No. 8570 27, Formulator's Exemption Statement d. EPA Form No. 8570 34, Certification with Respect to Citations of Data e. EPA Form No. 8570 35, Data Matrix 4. General Pesticide Information ( Some of these forms are in PDF format and will require the Acrobat reader).

a. Registration Division Personnel Contact List B. Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( BPPD) Contacts C. Antimicrobials Division Organizational Structure/ Contact List d. 53 F. R. 15952, Pesticide Registration Procedures; Pesticide Data Requirements ( PDF format) e. 40 CFR Part 156, Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices ( PDF format) f. 40 CFR Part 158, Data Requirements for Registration ( PDF format) g.. 50 F. R. 48833, Disclosure of Reviews of Pesticide Data ( November 27, 1985)

Before submitting your application for registration, you may wish to consult some additional sources of information. These include:

1. The Office of Pesticide Programs' website.

2. The booklet " General Information on Applying for Registration of Pesticides in the United States", PB92 221811, available through the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS) at the following address:

National Technical Information Service ( NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 The telephone number for NTIS is ( 703) 605 6000.

3. The National Pesticide Information Retrieval System ( NPIRS) of Purdue University's Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems. This service does charge a fee for subscriptions and custom searches. You can contact NPIRS by telephone at ( 765) 494 6614 or through their website.

4. The National Pesticide Information Center ( NPIC) can provide information on active ingredients, 123 uses, toxicology, and chemistry of pesticides. You can contact NPIC by telephone at ( 800) 858 7378 or through their website: http:// npic. orst. edu..

The Agency will return a notice of receipt of an application for registration or amended registration, experimental use permit, or amendment to a petition if the applicant or petitioner encloses with his submission a stamped, self addressed postcard. The postcard must contain the following entries to be completed by OPP:

° Date of receipt; ° EPA identifying number; and ° Product Manager assignment.

Other identifying information may be included by the applicant to link the acknowledgment of receipt to the specific application submitted. EPA will stamp the date of receipt and provide the EPA identifying file symbol or petition number for the new submission. The identifying number should be used whenever you contact the Agency concerning an application for registration, experimental use permit, or tolerance petition.

To assist us in ensuring that all data you have submitted for the chemical are properly coded and assigned to your company, please include a list of all synonyms, common and trade names, company experimental codes, and other names which identify the chemical ( including " blind" codes used when a sample was submitted for testing by commercial or academic facilities). Please provide a chemical abstract system ( CAS) number if one has been assigned.

Documents Associated with this RED The following documents are part of the Administrative Record for this RED document and may be included in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Public Docket. Copies of these documents are not available electronically, but may be obtained by contacting the person listed on the respective Chemical Status Sheet.

1. Health Effects Division and Environmental Fate and Effects Division Science Chapters, which include the complete risk assessments and supporting documents. 2. Detailed Label Usage Information System ( LUIS) Report.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13541-13543]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5724]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0219; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-228-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -
200CB, and -300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require modifying the
door latch fittings and witness mark placards of the off-wing escape
slide systems; and for certain airplanes, replacing the bearings and
lockbase retainer in the door latch assembly, relocating and adjusting
of the sensor target and the sensor proximity switch, and testing to
ensure positive door locking and corrective action if necessary. For
certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require installing a
bumper assembly and placards. This proposed AD was prompted by reports
of in-flight loss of the off-wing escape slide. We are proposing this
AD to prevent in-flight loss of the off-wing escape slide, which could
result in the unavailability of the escape slide during a time-critical
evacuation. Additionally, the departed slide could cause damage to the
fuselage, wing, flaps, or stabilizer, which could degrade flight
control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: ttps:// www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly DeVoe, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0219;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-228-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Since May 2005, four operators have reported seven events of in-
flight loss of the off-wing escape slides. The off-wing escape slides
did not inflate in flight. Due to latching failures of the compartment
doors for the off-wing escape slides, in-flight maneuvering resulted in
the departure of the slides from the airplane. The loss of the off-wing
escape slide could result in the unavailability of the escape slide
during a time-critical evacuation. Additionally, the departed slide
could cause damage to the fuselage, wing, flaps, or stabilizer, which
could degrade flight control.

Related Rulemaking

    To address the in-flight loss of the off-wing escape slide we
issued AD 99-17-20, Amendment 39-11266 (64 FR 45436, August 20, 1999),
which was based on Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0182, Revision 1,
dated June 12, 1997; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0200, dated
January 21, 1999. AD 99-17-20 requires modification of the door latch
system on the off-wing escape slide compartment and installation of a
bumper assembly on the bottom of the off-wing escape slide carriers on
certain Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes. However, it has been
shown through service history that more corrective actions, in addition
to AD 99-17-20, are needed to correct the unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0298,
dated October 16, 2008. This service bulletin describes procedures for
modifying the forward and aft door latch fittings for the left and
right off-wing escape slide systems and modifying the witness mark
placards on the maintenance access door frames for the left and right
off-wing escape slide systems. Additionally, this service bulletin
specifies that the following

three service bulletins should be done before or at the same time as
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0298, dated October
16, 2008.
    Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0182, Revision 2, dated January 11,
2001, specifies, for airplanes that have not been retrofitted using
Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0182, dated October 10, 1996; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 757-25-0182, Revision 1, dated June 12, 1997;
procedures to modify the door latch system of the left and right off-
wing emergency evacuation slide systems. The modification includes
replacing the bearings and lockbase retainer in the compartment door
latch assembly with new bearings and a new lockbase retainer, and
relocating and adjusting the sensor target and the sensor proximity
switch to forward locations on the evacuation slide compartment doors.
For airplanes that have been retrofitted, Boeing Service Bulletin 757-
25-0182, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2001, specifies testing to
determine that the compartment door sensor, as retrofitted, provides an
accurate indication of the door lock condition. For airplanes on which
the test indicates that the compartment door is not locking positively,
Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0182, Revision 2, dated January 11,
2001, specifies that the installed target is replaced with a new target
and the switch is remounted on the new bracket.
    Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0200, Revision 1, dated August 3,
2000 (for Model 757-200 and -200CB series airplanes); and Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0219, dated August 3, 2000
(for Model 757-300 series airplanes); specify installing a bumper
assembly on the left and right off-wing slide carriers, and installing
new witness mark and instruction placards in the area of the
maintenance access door.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 451 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Cost per
              Action                     Labor cost        Parts cost    product       Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification of fittings and        7 work-hours x $85         $1,365       $1,960  $883,960.
 placards: Service Bulletin (SB)     per hour = $595.
 757-25-0298.
Modification: Service Bulletin 757- 40 work-hours x $85        $2,786       $6,186  $1,880,544
 25-0182.                            per hour = $3,400.                             (304 airplanes).
Test: Service Bulletin 757-25-0182  2 work-hours x $85             $0         $170  $76,670.
                                     per hour = $170.
Bumper assembly and placards        4 work-hours x $85           $457         $797  $272,574
 installation: Service Bulletin      per hour = $340.                               (342 airplanes).
 757-25-0200.
Bumper assembly and placards        4 work-hours x $85           $457         $797  $0
 installation: Service Bulletin      per hour = $340.                               (0 airplanes).
 757-25-0219.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed test. We
have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements.

                           On-Condition Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Cost per
            Action                Labor cost     Parts cost    product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement and remount; SB    4 work-hours x        $2,786       $3,126
 757-25-0182.                   $85 per hour =
                                $340.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-0219; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-228-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 28, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) Certain requirements of this AD affect certain requirements
of AD 99-17-20, Amendment 39-11266.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0298,
dated October 16, 2008; with off-wing escape slide systems
installed.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment and Furnishings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight loss of the
off-wing escape slide. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight
loss of the off-wing escape slide, which could result in the
unavailability of the escape slide during a time-critical
evacuation. Additionally, the departed slide could cause damage to
the fuselage, wing, flaps, or stabilizer, which could degrade flight
control.

Compliance

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

Modification

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the door latch fittings and witness mark placards of the left and
right off-wing escape slide systems, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-25-0298, dated October 16, 2008.

Concurrent Actions

    (h) Concurrently with or before accomplishing the actions
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have not been modified by Boeing Service
Bulletin 757-25-0182, dated October 10, 1996; or Revision 1, dated
June 12, 1997; as of the effective date of this AD: Modify the door
latch system of the left and right off-wing emergency evacuation
slide systems, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0182, Revision 2, dated January 11,
2001.
    (2) For airplanes that have been modified by Boeing Service
Bulletin 757-25-0182, dated October 10, 1996; or Revision 1, dated
June 12, 1997; as of the effective date of this AD: Do a test to
verify that the modified compartment door sensor provides an
accurate indication of the door lock condition, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-
0182, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2001. If the test indicates that
the compartment door is not locking positively, concurrently with or
before accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, replace the target and remount the switch on the new bracket, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 757-25-0182, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2001.
    (i) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-
0200, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2000: Concurrently with or before
accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
install a bumper assembly on the left and right off-wing escape
slide carriers, and install new placards in the area of the
maintenance access door, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0200, Revision 1,
dated August 3, 2000.
    (j) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-25-0219, dated August 3, 2000: Concurrently with or
before accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, install a bumper assembly on the left and right off-wing escape
slide carriers, and install new placards in the area of the
maintenance access door, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-
0219, dated August 3, 2000.

Terminating Action for Paragraph (a)(1) of AD 99-17-20

    (k) Actions done in accordance with paragraph (h)(1) of this AD
terminate the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of AD 99-17-20.

Terminating Action for Paragraph (a)(2) of AD 99-17-20

    (l) Actions done in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD
terminate the corresponding requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of AD
99-17-20.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance with Previous Service
Information

    (m) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 757-25-0200, dated January
21, 1999, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (n)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (o) For more information about this AD, contact Kimberly DeVoe,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (p) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-5724 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 40)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9162-9166]
[DOCID:fr03mr09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96-1-029; Order No. 587-T]

Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines

Issued February 24, 2009.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending its regulations that establish standards for interstate
natural gas pipeline business practices and electronic communications
to incorporate by reference into its regulations the most recent
version of the standards, Version 1.8, adopted by the Wholesale Gas
Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and
to make other minor corrections. This rule upgrades the Commission's
current business practice and communication standards to reflect the
latest version approved by the NAESB WGQ (i.e., the Version 1.8
Standards), and is necessary to increase the efficiency of the pipeline
grid, make pipelines' electronic communications more secure, and is
consistent with the mandate that agencies provide for electronic
disclosure of information.

DATES: This rule will become effective April 2, 2009. Natural gas
pipelines are required to implement these standards on the first day of
the month three months after the effective date of this rule and file
tariff sheets to reflect the changed standards on the first day of the
month one month after the effective date of this rule. The Director of
the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of the
standards addressed in this Final Rule effective April 2, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Lohrman (technical issues), Office of Energy Market Regulation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Kay Morice (technical issues), Office of Energy Market Regulation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Caroline Daly (technical issues), Office of Energy Market Regulation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Acting Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending Sec.  284.12 of its regulations (which establishes standards
for natural gas pipeline business practices and electronic
communications) \1\ to incorporate by reference the most recent version
(Version 1.8) of the standards promulgated by the Wholesale Gas
Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). In
addition, the Commission is amending Sec.  284.12(b) of its regulations
to make minor corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 284.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Since 1996, in the Order No. 587 series,\2\ the Commission has
adopted regulations to standardize the business practices and
communication methodologies of interstate pipelines in order to create
a more integrated and efficient pipeline grid. In this series of
orders, the Commission incorporated by reference consensus standards
developed by the WGQ (formerly the Gas Industry Standards Board or
GISB), a private consensus standards developer composed of members from
all segments of the natural gas industry. The WGQ is an accredited
standards organization under the auspices of the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (July 26, 1996), FERC Stats. &
Regs., ] 31,038 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On September 14, 2007, NAESB submitted a report to the
Commission stating that it had adopted a new version of its standards,
Version 1.8, dated September 30, 2006.\3\ NAESB reported that the
Version 1.8 Standards include a new set of standards for ``Internet
Electronic Transport'' that is applicable to the retail gas and
electric markets as well as the wholesale gas market,\4\ changes to the
Electronic Delivery Mechanism (EDM) Related Standards, an additional
standard related to reporting on gas quality, and maintenance changes
to the Nomination Related Standards and Flowing Gas Related Standards.
NAESB also reported that the Version 1.8 standards included several
standards already adopted by the Commission, including gas-electric
coordination standards to support communications between pipelines and
gas-fired generators,\5\ gas quality reporting standards to support
reporting of gas quality specifications and reporting of the underlying
assumptions and methodologies, and business practice standards to
support implementation of Order No. 2004 on Standards of Conduct.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Some of the standards subsequently were corrected and these
minor corrections were applied to the Version 1.8 Capacity Release
Related Standards on Dec. 13, 2006.
    \4\ In this Final Rule, the Commission is requiring interstate
natural gas pipelines to comply with these standards. We are not
making these standards mandatory for retail transactions.
    \5\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines; Standards for Business Practices for Public Utilities,
Order No. 698, 72 FR 38757 (July 16, 2007), FERC Stats, & Regs ]
31,251 (2007); order granting clarification and denying reh'g, Order
No. 698-A, 121 FERC ] 61,264 (2007).
    \6\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
2004, 68 FR 69134 (Dec. 11, 2003), FERC Stats. & Regs., ] 31,155
(2003); order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-B, 69 FR 23562 (Apr. 29,
2004), FERC Stats. & Regs., ] 31,161 (2004); order on reh'g, Order
No. 2004-B, 69 FR 48371 (Aug. 10, 2004), FERC Stats. & Regs., ]
31,166 (2004); order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-C, 70 FR 284 (Jan. 4,
2005), FERC Stats. & Regs., ] 31,172 (2004); order on clarification
and reh'g, Order No. 2004-D, 110 FERC ] 61,320 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On September 18, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) \7\ that proposed to incorporate by
reference the WGQ's Version 1.8 Standards and to make minor corrections
to Sec.  284.12(b) of the Commission's regulations. The sole comment
was filed by American Gas Association (AGA), which supported the
adoption of Version 1.8 of the standards, but requested modifications
to the Commission's relationship with NAESB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 55460 (Sep. 18,
2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,636 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    5. The Commission's NOPR proposal to amend part 284 of its
regulations to incorporate by reference Version 1.8 of the NAESB WGQ's
consensus standards,\8\ with the two exceptions

noted in the NOPR,\9\ was not opposed by any commenter. Adoption of
Version 1.8 will continue the process of updating and improving NAESB's
business practice standards for the wholesale gas market. The new
Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards will help create a more
seamless electronic marketplace by providing consistent electronic
protocols across the wholesale gas, as well as the retail gas and
retail electric markets. The standards also include a new standard for
gas quality reporting (Standard 4.3.93) that will provide the industry
with important information about how pipelines determine gas quality.
Standard 4.3.93 requires that the pipelines post on their Web sites
specific information on how the pipelines determine gas quality,
including the industry standard (or other methodology, as applicable)
that the pipeline uses for the following: procedures used for obtaining
natural gas samples, analytical test method(s), and calculation
method(s), in conjunction with any physical constant(s) and underlying
assumption(s). The revisions to the Nomination Related Standards and
Flowing Gas Related Standards are designed to ensure that these
standards reflect current market practices.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In its Version 1.8 Standards, the WGQ made the following
changes to its Version 1.7 standards:
    It revised Principles 1.1.9, 4.1.2, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7,
Definitions 2.2.4, 4.2.1, 4.2.11, 4.2.12, 4.2.13, and 4.2.20,
Standards 1.3.54, 1.3.60, 1.3.61, 1.3.63, 2.3.21, 2.3.35, 2.3.51,
4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.5, 4.3.16, 4.3.18, 4.3.22, 4.3.23, and 4.3.25, and
Datasets 1.4.1 through 1.4.7, 2.4.1 through 2.4.4, 2.4.7, 2.4.8,
3.4.1, 5.4.1 through 5.4.3, 5.4.5, 5.4.7 through 5.4.11, 5.4.13,
5.4.14, 5.4.15, and 5.4.18 through 5.4.22.
    It added Principles 0.1.3, 4.1.40, and 10.1.1 through 10.1.9,
Definitions 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.2.3, and 10.2.1 through 10.2.38,
Standards 0.3.11 through 0.3.15, 2.3.65, 4.3.89 through 4.3.93, and
10.3.1 through 10.3.25, and Data Sets 0.4.1, 2.4.17, 2.4.18, and
5.4.23.
    It deleted Principles 4.1.9 and 4.1.25, and Standards 4.3.6,
4.3.19, 4.3.21, and 4.3.63.
    It deleted the following standards from the EDM Related
Standards and moved them to the Internet Electronic Transport
Related Standards: Standards 4.3.7 through 4.3.15, 4.3.37, 4.3.64,
4.3.70, 4.3.71, and 4.3.88.
    It renamed the EDM Related Standards, which are now entitled the
Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards.
    \9\ As proposed in the NOPR, the Commission is continuing its
past practice and is not incorporating by reference Standards 4.3.4
and 10.3.2, because they are inconsistent with the Commission's
record retention requirement in 18 CFR 284.12(b)(3)(v).
    \10\ In addition, the Commission is amending Sec.  284.12(b) to
make two minor corrections. First, we correct the reference to the
``Gas Industry Standards Board'' to refer to the ``North American
Energy Standards Board Wholesale Gas Quadrant.'' Second, we correct
the reference to the paragraph incorporating the NAESB standards by
reference from paragraph (b)(1) to paragraph (a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The NAESB WGQ approved the Version 1.8 Standards under NAESB's
consensus procedures.\11\ As the Commission found in Order No. 587,
adoption of consensus standards is appropriate because the consensus
process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring
that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of industry
participants representing all segments of the industry. Moreover, since
the industry itself has to conduct business under these standards, the
Commission's regulations should reflect those standards that have the
widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTT&AA), Congress affirmatively
requires federal agencies to use technical standards developed by
voluntary consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, as means to
carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This process first requires a super-majority vote of 17 out
of 25 members of the WGQ's Executive Committee with support from at
least two members from each of the five industry segments--
Distributors, End Users, Pipelines, Producers, and Services
(including marketers and computer service providers). For final
approval, 67 percent of the WGQ's general membership voting must
ratify the standards.
    \12\ Public Law 104-113, Sec.  12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15
U.S.C. 272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. One of the Version 1.8 standards, WGQ Standard 4.3.23, provides
guidelines for how pipelines post transmission provider Standards of
Conduct-related information on their Web sites. However, the Commission
issued revised Standards of Conduct requirements in Order No. 717 \13\
subsequent to the Version 1.8 standards adopted by NAESB. As a result,
some of the data templates in the NAESB WGQ 4.3.23 standard are
unnecessary. We will incorporate Standard 4.3.23, because it contains
requirements for posting that are applicable under Order No. 717.
However, pipelines will not be required to continue to post affiliate
information that is no longer required to be maintained under the
Commission's regulations as amended by Order No. 717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717, 73 FR 63796 (Oct. 27, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs ] 31,280
(2008), reh'g pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In addition to comments in support of the proposed rule, AGA
requested that the Commission take a more active role in shepherding
the development of wholesale gas standards. In brief, AGA is concerned
that the standards process takes too long to complete.
    9. We appreciate AGA's desire that standard development proceed
quickly. We note that NAESB has taken a continuing interest in
improving its standards-setting process, and has, for example, recently
adopted policies to allow standards setting decisions to be made more
quickly for important efforts.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NAESB Policy on Efficient Standards Development, adopted by
NAESB Board of Directors, Sep. 25, 2008, http://www.naesb.org/pdf3/
bd092508a2.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Implementation Dates and Procedures

    10. Based on past practice, we are adopting an implementation
schedule designed to provide natural gas pipelines adequate time to
prepare for these changes. Pipelines are required to implement the
standards we are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule by the
first day of the month three months after the effective date of this
Final Rule. In addition, pipelines are required to file tariff sheets
to reflect the changed standards on the first day of the month one
month after the effective date of this Final Rule to be effective as of
the implementation date. Pipelines incorporating the Version 1.8
standards into their tariffs must include the standard number and
Version 1.8.

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    11. In section 12(d) of NTT&AA, Congress affirmatively requires
federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, as the means to carry
out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies unless
use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.\15\ NAESB approved the standards under its
consensus procedures. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119
(Sec.  11) (February 10, 1998) provides that federal agencies should
publish a request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to
issue or revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus
standard or a government-unique standard. On September 18, 2008, the
Commission issued a NOPR that proposed to incorporate by reference
NAESB's Version 1.8 Standards. The Commission took comments on the NOPR
into account in fashioning this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Public Law 104-113, Sec.  12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15
U.S.C. 272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Information Collection Statement

    12. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations in 5
CFR 1320.11 require that it approve certain reporting and recordkeeping
requirements (collections of information) imposed by an agency. Upon
approval of a collection of

information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this Final Rule
will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB
control number.
    13. This Final Rule upgrades the Commission's current business
practice and communication standards to the latest edition approved by
the NAESB WGQ (i.e., the Version 1.8 Standards).
    14. The implementation of these standards is necessary to increase
the efficiency of the pipeline grid, make pipelines' electronic
communications more secure, and is consistent with the mandate that
agencies provide for electronic disclosure of information. Requiring
such information ensures a common means of communication and ensures
common business practices that provide participants engaged in
transactions with interstate pipelines with timely information and
uniform business procedures across multiple pipelines.
    15. The following burden estimates include the costs to implement
the WGQ's revised business practice standards and communication
protocols for interstate natural gas pipelines. The implementation of
these data requirements will help the Commission carry out its
responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act of promoting the efficiency
and reliability of the natural gas industry's operations. In addition,
the Commission's Office of Energy Market Regulation will use the data
for general industry oversight.
    16. The Commission sought comments on the Commission's estimate
provided in the NOPR of the burden associated with adoption of the NOPR
proposals. In response to the NOPR, no comments were filed that
addressed the reporting burden imposed by these requirements. Therefore
the Commission will use these same estimates in this Final Rule. The
substantive issue raised by the sole commenter on the NOPR is addressed
in this preamble.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               No. of       No. of responses      Hours per       Total No. of
             Data collection                 respondents     per respondent       response            hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-545 \16\...........................               168                 1                10             1,680
FERC-549C \17\..........................               126                 1             1,181           148,806
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if
appropriate)) = 150,486.
    17. Information Collection Costs: The Commission sought comments on
the costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the
average annualized cost for all respondents to be the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Data collection FERC-545 covers rate change filings made by
natural gas pipelines, including tariff changes. (OMB control No.
1902-0154)
    \17\ Data collection FERC-549C covers Standards for Business
Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. (OMB Control No.
1902-0174)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FERC-545    FERC-549C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs..............     $211,680  $12,743,010
Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance)...            0            0
                                               -------------------------
    Total Annualized Costs....................      211,680   12,743,010
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Cost for all Respondents = $12,954,690.
    18. OMB regulations \18\ require OMB to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is
submitting notification of this Final Rule to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rates Change (Non-Formal);
FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines.
    Action: Information collections.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0154, 1902-0174.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, (Interstate natural gas
pipelines (Not applicable to small business)).
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business
procedures, capital/start-up).
    Necessity of Information: The Commission's regulations adopted in
this rule are necessary to increase the efficiency of the pipeline
grid, make pipelines' electronic communications more secure, and is
consistent with the mandate that agencies provide for electronic
disclosure of information.\19\ Requiring such information ensures both
a common means of communication and common business practices that
provide participants engaged in transactions with interstate pipelines
with timely information and uniform business procedures across multiple
pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 44 U.S.C. 3504 note, Public Law 105-277, 1701, 112 Stat.
2681-749 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. The information collection requirements of this Final Rule will
be reported directly to the industry users. The implementation of these
data requirements will help the Commission carry out its
responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act to monitor activities of the
natural gas industry to ensure its competitiveness and to assure the
improved efficiency of the industry's operations. The Commission's
Office of Energy Market Regulation will use the data in rate
proceedings to review rate and tariff changes by natural gas companies
for the transportation of gas, for general industry oversight, and to
supplement the documentation used during the Commission's audit
process.
    20. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to business practices and electronic communication with
interstate natural gas pipelines and has made a determination that
these revisions are necessary to establish a more efficient and
integrated pipeline grid. These requirements conform to the
Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication,
and management within the natural gas industry. The Commission has
assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information requirements.
    21. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC

20426; [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
michael.miller@ferc.gov;] or by contacting:
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503; [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax: (202) 395-
7285].

VI. Environmental Analysis

    22. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\20\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\21\ The actions adopted here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and
transportation of natural gas and electric power that requires no
construction of facilities. Therefore, an environmental assessment is
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 30,783 (1987).
    \21\ 18 CFR 380.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \22\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In drafting a rule an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that
its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective
alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the
analysis available for public comment.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \23\ 5 U.S.C. 601-604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The regulations we are adopting in this Final Rule impose
requirements only on interstate pipelines, the majority of which are
not small businesses. In this regard, we note that, under the industry
standards used for the RFA, a natural gas pipeline company qualifies as
a ``small entity'' if it had annual receipts of $ 6.5 million or
less.\24\ Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within
the RFA's definition of a small entity. Approximately 168 entities
would be potential respondents subject to data collection FERC-545
reporting requirements; of those, about 126 natural gas companies
(including storage) would also be subject to data collection FERC-549C
reporting requirements. Nearly all of these entities are large
entities. For the year 2007 (the most recent year for which information
is available), only four companies not affiliated with larger companies
had annual revenues of less than $ 6.5 million, which is about three
percent of the total universe of potential respondents. Moreover, these
requirements are designed to benefit all customers, including small
businesses. As noted above, adoption of consensus standards helps
ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the
standards draw support from a broad spectrum of industry participants
representing all segments of the industry. Because of that
representation and the fact that industry conducts business under these
standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those standards
that have the widest possible support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 623. Section 3 of the SBA defines a ``small business
concern'' as a business which is independently owned and operated
and which is not dominant in its field of operation. The Small
Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry
Classification System defines a small natural gas pipeline company
as one that transports natural gas and whose annual receipts (total
income plus cost of goods sold) did not exceed $6.5 million for the
previous year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the
Commission hereby certifies that the regulations adopted herein will
not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

VIII. Document Availability

    26. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    27. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll-free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-Mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    28. These regulations are effective April 2, 2009. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

    Continental shelf, Incorporation by reference, Natural gas,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Kelliher is not participating.
Commissioner Moeller concurring with a separate statement attached.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 284 of
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.

0
2. Section 284.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through
(vi), adding paragraph (a)(1)(vii), and revising the introductory text
of paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  284.12  Standards for pipeline business operations and
communications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Additional Standards (General Standards, Creditworthiness
Standards, and Gas/Electric Operational Communications Standards)
(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006);
    (ii) Nominations Related Standards (Version 1.8, September 30,
2006);
    (iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 1.8, September 30,
2006);

    (iv) Invoicing Related Standards (Version 1.8, September 30, 2006);
    (v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006) with the exception of Standard 4.3.4;
    (vi) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 1.8, September 30,
2006 (with minor corrections applied December 13, 2006); and
    (vii) Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards (Version 1.8,
September 30, 2006) with the exception of Standard 10.3.2.
* * * * *
    (b) Business practices and electronic communication requirements.
An interstate pipeline that transports gas under subparts B or G of
this part must comply with the following requirements. The regulations
in this paragraph adopt the abbreviations and definitions contained in
the North American Energy Standards Board Wholesale Gas Quadrant
standards incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
* * * * *

    Note: The following text will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

United States of America

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Docket No. RM96-1-029.

Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines

(Issued February 24, 2009.)

MOELLER, Commissioner, concurring:

    The American Gas Association (AGA), in its comments, contends
that the NAESB process takes too long to complete. Because of that,
AGA urges the Commission to review its procedures and relationship
with NAESB with the goal of streamlining the process by which
business practices standards are developed, approved and
incorporated into the Commission's regulations. In particular, AGA
identifies delays that have occurred in NAESB's technical
implementation as well as in development and publication of
standards.
    I recognize that some of the delay may be attributable to the
Commission's own processes and priorities; however, AGA has
identified areas, such as technical development, in which NAESB can
improve its procedures. I appreciate the Wholesale Gas Quadrant's
current efforts as referenced in the final rule (as well as the
dedication of NAESB staff) to improve its procedures, and I urge
NAESB and its volunteers to continue its work to find and identify
areas in which its processes can become more efficient and timely.

Philip D. Moeller,
Commissioner.

 [FR Doc. E9-4295 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51870-51871]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1047; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-23]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Fort Worth
and Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class D airspace at Fort Worth, TX, and
the Class E airspace at Dallas-Fort Worth, TX. This action is the
result of an airspace review due to the cancellation of the instrument
procedures and implementation of new instrument procedures at Granbury
Regional Airport, Granbury, TX, contained within the Dallas-Fort Worth,
TX, Class E airspace legal description. The geographic coordinates of
Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort Worth, TX, are also being updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. 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 JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class D airspace at Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort
Worth, TX, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Granbury Regional Airport, Granbury, TX, contained
within the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description, to
support instrument flight operations at these airports.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 68571; December 3, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-1047
to amend the Class D airspace at Fort Worth, TX, and the Class E
airspace at Dallas-Fort Worth, TX. 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 and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO
7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Difference From the NPRM

    Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA updated the term
``Notice to Airmen'' to ``Notice to Air Missions.'' As this is an
administrative change and does not impact the proposed airspace, this
change has been incorporated into the Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort
Worth, TX, airspace legal description.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Amends the Class D airspace at Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort
Worth, TX, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and updates the outdated
term ``Notice to Airmen'' to ``Notice to Air Missions;''
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within an 8.8-mile (increased from a 6.3-mile) radius
of Granbury Regional Airport, Granbury, TX, contained within the
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description; and updates the
geographic coordinates of Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort Worth, TX,
also contained within the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX airspace legal
description, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review due to the
cancellation of the instrument procedures and implementation of new
instrument procedures at Granbury Regional Airport.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and
unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1)
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    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 part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Fort Worth, TX [Amended]

Fort Worth Spinks Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]33'54'' N, long. 97[deg]18'30'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not
including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Fort Worth
Spinks Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 173[deg] bearing
from the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 4.8 miles
south of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Air Missions. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

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

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX [Amended]

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]53'50'' N, long. 97[deg]02'16'' W)
McKinney National Airport, TX
    (Lat. 33[deg]10'37'' N, long. 96[deg]35'20'' W)
Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]55'50'' N, long. 96[deg]26'08'' W)
Mesquite Metro Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]44'49'' N, long. 96[deg]31'50'' W)
Mesquite Metro: RWY 18-LOC
    (Lat. 32[deg]44'03'' N, long. 96[deg]31'50'' W)
Lancaster Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]34'39'' N, long. 96[deg]43'03'' W)
Point of Origin
    (Lat. 32[deg]51'57'' N, long. 97[deg]01'41'' W)
Fort Worth Spinks Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]33'54'' N, long. 97[deg]18'30'' W)
Cleburne Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]21'14'' N, long. 97[deg]26'02'' W)
Bourland Field, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]34'55'' N, long. 97[deg]35'27'' W)
Granbury Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]26'40'' N, long. 97[deg]49'01'' W)
Parker County Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]44'47'' N, long. 97[deg]40'57'' W)
Bridgeport Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 33[deg]10'26'' N, long. 97[deg]49'42'' W)
Decatur Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 33[deg]15'15'' N, long. 97[deg]34'50'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 30-mile radius of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport,
and within a 6.6-mile radius of McKinney National Airport, and
within 1.8 miles each side of the 002[deg] bearing from McKinney
National Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.2 miles
north of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Ralph M. Hall/
Rockwall Municipal Airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the
010[deg] bearing from Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport
extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.8 miles north of the
airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Mesquite Metro Airport, and
within 4 miles west and 7.9 miles east of the 001[deg] bearing from
the Mesquite Metro: RWY 18-LOC extending from the 6.5-mile radius of
the Mesquite Metro Airport to 10 miles north of the Mesquite Metro:
RWY 18-LOC, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Lancaster Regional
Airport, and within 1.9 miles each side of the 140[deg] bearing from
Lancaster Regional Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.2
miles southeast of the airport, and within 8 miles northeast and 4
miles southwest of the 144[deg] bearing from the Point of Origin
extending from the 30-mile radius of Dallas-Fort Worth International
Airport to 35 miles southeast of the Point of Origin, and within a
6.5-mile radius of Fort Worth Spinks Airport, and within 8 miles
east and 4 miles west of the 178[deg] bearing from Fort Worth Spinks
Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 21 miles south of the
airport, and within a 6.9-mile radius of Cleburne Regional Airport,
and within 3.6 miles each side of the 292[deg] bearing from the
Cleburne Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 12.2
miles northwest of airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Bourland
Field, and within a 8.8-mile radius of Granbury Regional Airport,
and within a 6.3-mile radius of Parker County Airport, and within 8
miles east and 4 miles west of the 177[deg] bearing from Parker
County Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 21.4 miles
south of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Bridgeport
Municipal Airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 040[deg]
bearing from Bridgeport Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-
mile radius to 10.6 miles northeast of the airport, and within 4
miles each side of the 001[deg] bearing from Bridgeport Municipal
Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.7 miles north of
the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Decatur Municipal
Airport, and within 1.5 miles each side of the 263[deg] bearing from
Decatur Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 9.2
miles west of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 18, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-18181 Filed 8-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P