[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7502-7509]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1204]

Draft FAA Policy Regarding Air Carrier Incentive Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed policy; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a proposed update of FAA policy
regarding incentives offered by airport sponsors to air carriers for
improved air service. It is longstanding practice for airport operators
to offer incentives to air carriers to promote new air service at an
airport, including both new air carriers serving the airport and new
destinations served.

DATES: The FAA will accept public comments on the proposed policy
statement for 60 days. Comments must be submitted on or before April 4,
2023. The FAA will consider comments on the proposed policy statement.
In response to comments received, the FAA will consider appropriate
revisions to the policy and publish a subsequent policy statement in
the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2022-
1204 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 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>.
    For more information on the process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the Department of
Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform
its process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket. Or, go 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:  Kevin C. Willis, Director, Office of
Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airports obligated under the terms of an
Airport Improvement Program grant agreement include virtually all
commercial airports in the United States. At each of these airports,
the airport sponsor must ensure that an air carrier incentive program
is consistent with the sponsor's FAA grant agreements, including
standard Grant Assurances relating to economic discrimination,
reasonable fees, and use of airport revenue. In the 1999 Policy and
Procedures Regarding the Use of Airport Revenue, the FAA provided that
certain costs of activities promoting new air service and competition
at an airport are permissible as a tool for commercial airports to
establish or retain scheduled air service. In the 2010 Air Carrier
Incentive Program Guidebook, the FAA provided more detailed guidance on
both the use of airport revenue and the temporary reduction or waiver
of airport fees as an incentive for carriers to begin serving an
airport or begin service on a route not currently served from the
airport. A number of U.S. airport sponsors have used air carrier
incentive programs in recent years, and the agency had the opportunity
to review many of these programs for consistency with the sponsor's
grant agreements, Grant Assurances, and other Federal obligations.
Based on that experience, the FAA is proposing a restatement of agency
policy on air carrier incentive programs. This notice publishes and
requests public comment on the proposed revised policy statement.

Availability of Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of this policy and all other
documents in this docket using the internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking portal (http://www.faa.gov/regulations/search);
    (2) Visiting FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at (https://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Compliance and Management
Analysis, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice
number, or amendment number of this proceeding.

Authority for the Policy

    This notice is published under the authority described in Title 49
of the United States Code, Subtitle VII, part B, chapter 471, section
47122(a). The policy proposed under this notice will not have the force
and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way, and
the notice is intended only to provide information to the public
regarding existing requirements under the law and agency policies.
Mandatory terms such as ``must'' in this notice describe established
statutory or regulatory requirements.

Background

Air Carrier Incentive Programs

    Airports and communities of all sizes use air carrier incentives in
order to attract new air service. Incentives may be offered to new
entrant carriers to begin service at an airport or to incumbent
carriers at an airport to add new routes. Incentives may apply to
international or domestic service. Air carrier incentive programs
(ACIP) can be divided into two primary categories: programs funded by
the airport itself (``airport-sponsored incentives'') and those funded
by the local community (``community-sponsored incentives''). The
primary distinction between these two groups relates to the funding
used for an incentive. For airport-sponsored incentives using airport
funds, the use of the funds must comply with the requirements of
Federal law and FAA grant agreements for use of airport revenue. In
contrast, community-sponsored incentives using non-airport funds may be
used in a broader set of ways. Community-sponsored incentives have been
funded by various community groups, including local governments, local
chambers of commerce and tourism organizations and local businesses.
Airport-sponsored incentives largely involve a reduction or waiver of
landing fees and other airport fees. Airport sponsors may also
contribute to marketing programs, provided the marketing focuses on the
airport rather than destination marketing. Community-sponsored
incentives can include more direct financing of routes, including
minimum revenue guarantees, travel banks, and marketing funding that
may include destination marketing. Another important distinction is the
role played by the airport sponsor. The sponsor may have a direct
management role of the airport-sponsored incentive program, or a
limited role advising the non-airport entity responsible for the
community-sponsored incentive program.

Federal Obligations

    Airport sponsors that have accepted grants under the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) have agreed to comply with certain Federal
requirements included in each AIP grant agreement as sponsor
assurances. The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA) (Pub.
L. 97-248), as amended and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq.,
requires that the FAA obtain certain assurances from an airport sponsor
as a condition of receiving an AIP grant. Several of these standard
Grant Assurances relate to the extent to which an airport sponsor can
provide incentives to an air carrier in return for new air service at
the airport.
    Grant Assurance 22: Economic discrimination. Grant Assurance 22,
paragraph 22.a. requires the airport sponsor to allow access by
aeronautical operators and services on reasonable terms and without
unjust discrimination. Paragraph 22.e. of Grant Assurance 22 further
requires:
    Each air carrier using such airport . . . shall be subject to such
nondiscriminatory and substantially comparable rules, regulations,
conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges with respect to
facilities directly and substantially related to providing

air transportation as are applicable to all such air carriers which
make similar use of such airport and utilize similar facilities,
subject to reasonable classifications such as tenants or non-tenants
and signatory carriers and non- signatory carriers.
    The FAA has determined that a carrier starting new service at an
airport is temporarily not similarly situated to carriers with
established route service at the same airport. Accordingly, an airport
sponsor may offer a waiver or reduction of fees and jointly market new
service, for a fixed time and within certain limits, without unjustly
discriminating against carriers not offering new service and not
participating in the air carrier incentive program.
    Grant Assurance 22 also serves to prohibit an airport sponsor from
charging carriers and other operators not participating in an incentive
program for any costs of an air carrier incentive program. Charging
non-participating operators for the costs of an incentive would be a
cross-subsidy of the incentive program, and therefore not a reasonable
fee component for non-participating operators.
    Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure: Grant Assurance 24
generally requires that an airport sponsor maintain an airport rate
structure that makes the airport as self-sustaining as possible. For
purposes of planning and implementing an ACIP, the airport sponsor must
assure that a marketing program to promote increases in air passenger
service does not adversely affect the airport's self-sustainability and
the existing resources needed for the operation and maintenance of the
airport.
    Grant Assurance 25, Airport Revenues: Grant Assurance 25, which
implements 49 U.S.C. 47107(b), generally requires that airport revenues
be used for the capital and operating costs of the airport or local
airport system. Title 49 U.S.C. 47133 imposes the same requirement
directly on obligated airport sponsors. The FAA Policy and Procedures
Regarding the Use of Airport Revenue, in section V.A.2, provides that
expenditures for the promotion of an airport, promotion of new air
service and competition at the airport, and marketing of airport
services are legitimate costs of an airport's operation. Air carrier
operations are not a capital or operating cost of an airport;
therefore, use of airport revenue for a carrier's operations is a
prohibited use of airport revenue. Accordingly, while an airport
sponsor can assume certain marketing costs relating to service at the
airport, the sponsor may not make payments in any form from airport
revenue to a carrier for operating at the airport, including for
providing air service at the airport.
Related Federal Programs
    Essential Air Service Program. Following deregulation of the
airline industry, the Essential Air Service (EAS) program was put into
place to guarantee that communities that were served by certificated
air carriers before airline deregulation maintain a minimal level of
scheduled air service. The United States Department of Transportation
(the Department) implements this program by subsidizing at least a
minimum of daily flights from each designated EAS community/airport,
usually to a large- or medium-hub airport, except for within Alaska. As
of late 2022, the Department subsidizes commuter and air carriers, and
air taxis to serve 61 communities in Alaska and 111 communities in the
48 contiguous states and Puerto Rico that otherwise would not receive
any passenger air transportation. Because the EAS program largely
involves Federal payments to air carriers, the [EAS] program does not
affect the responsibilities of an airport sponsor for use of airport
revenue or compliance with other AIP Grant Assurances. Eleven (11)
communities receive funding, via grant agreements, through the
Alternate Essential Air Service (AEAS) program. Those 11 communities
obtain their own air service, currently all from a commuter air
carrier, operating all flights as public charters under DOT Part 380
regulations.
    Small Community Air Service Development Program. The Small
Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) is a Federal grant
program designed to provide financial assistance to small communities
to help them enhance their air service. The program is managed by the
Associate Director, Small Community Air Service Development Program,
under the Office of Aviation Analysis, in the Office of the Secretary
of Transportation. Grantees must be public entities and can include
local governments and airport operators. Grant funds may be used for a
variety of measures to promote air service and are dispersed on a
reimbursable basis. SCASDP grant funds are not airport revenue and may
be used for purposes for which airport revenue is prohibited, including
direct subsidy of air carrier operations. Holding a SCASDP grant does
not affect an airport sponsor's obligations under its AIP grant
agreements. The Department's order awarding SCASDP grants states that a
SCASDP grant does not relieve the airport sponsor from the obligation
to use airport revenues only for purposes permitted by the AIP Grant
Assurances and Federal law. Accordingly, if airport revenues are used
as local match funds for a SCASDP grant, those funds remain subject to
Grant Assurance 25, however this would not prevent an airport sponsor
using airport revenue as a local match to SCASDP grants similar to
airport revenue being used as a local match to AIP grants. This permits
airport sponsors to pursue reasonable strategies to promote the airport
and provide incentives to encourage new air service.
The 2010 Air Carrier Incentive Guidebook
    FAA policy on air carrier incentive programs is currently published
in the Air Carrier Incentive Program Guidebook, issued in September
2010 (and referred to below as ``the Guidebook'' or ``the 2010
Guidebook''). The Guidebook is available on the FAA Airports website
at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/media/air-carrier-incentive-2010.pdf. While the Guidebook has served as a useful
description of FAA policy on ACIPs since 2010, the agency is
considering a policy grounded more in basic principles rather than in a
detailed list of prohibited practices. The intention is to provide more
flexibility for airport sponsors to design particular incentive
programs while remaining in compliance with Federal obligations
regarding economic discrimination, reasonable fees, and use of airport
revenue.
FAA Experience With ACIPs
    In the last 20 years, and particularly since the publication of the
2010 Guidebook, there has been a proliferation of ACIPs. ACIPs have
been implemented at more than 250 U.S. commercial service airports.
Some airport sponsors have used ACIPs on occasion or intermittently,
while others have maintained ACIPs on a recurring and renewable annual
basis. ACIPs have been used at smaller airports seeking to acquire and
maintain any level of air carrier service, while sponsors of larger hub
airports have also used ACIPs to add to existing service patterns.
    While most ACIPs have complied with Federal obligations as outlined
in the 2010 Guidebook, several practices have raised issues of
compliance:
     There have been cases where an airport sponsor has sought
service from a specific air carrier and tailored its ACIP for that
purpose, which can present an issue of unjust discrimination.

     While sponsors have avoided direct cash subsidies to
carriers, some ACIPs have included incentives that could be seen as
efforts to circumvent the clear prohibition on the use of airport
revenue for subsidy of carrier operations.
     Sponsors have made direct cash payments to carriers for
marketing costs under a joint marketing program.
     Use of a sponsor's community funds for practices such as
airline subsidies and revenue guarantees for a carrier may be
inconsistent with the sponsor's Grant Assurances.
     Sponsors have entered into incentive arrangements with a
carrier with no notice to the public or other carriers of the terms of
the incentive program. Non-participating carriers may have no means of
determining whether and how the incentive program affects aeronautical
fees at the airport.
    In consideration of agency experience with the oversight of ACIPs
in recent years, the FAA is proposing a restatement of the agency
policy on ACIPs.
Guiding General Principles
    The framework of Federal statutes and grant agreements in which an
ACIP can be implemented can be summarized in five basic principles. The
proposed restatement of policy on ACIPs includes a statement of each of
these principles, as the agency interpretation of what Federal statutes
and grant agreements allow. While the policy statement describes in
more detail whether certain elements of an ACIP are acceptable, FAA
determinations of whether an ACIP is consistent with Federal
obligations will ultimately be based on application of the general
principles. The proposed principles and the authorities on which they
are based are as follows:
     Discrimination between carriers participating in an ACIP
and non-participating carriers must be justified and time-limited.
Grant Assurance 22 prohibits unjust discrimination among air carriers
at an airport. Discrimination in the form of fee reductions for a
participating carrier is only justified until the carrier has had a
reasonable opportunity to market the new service. After that time the
carrier is considered similarly situated to other carriers at the
airport, and must operate under the same terms and fees as other
carriers.
     A sponsor may not use airport revenues to subsidize air
carriers. 49 U.S.C. 47133 and Grant Assurance 25, Airport Revenues,
prohibit use of airport revenue for purposes other than those listed in
U.S.C. 47107(b) and 47133. Payments to an air carrier to operate at an
airport are not considered a capital or operating cost of the airport,
and are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 47107 and 47133, and Grant Assurance
25.
     A sponsor may not cross-charge non-participating carriers
or other aeronautical users to subsidize ACIP carriers. Grant Assurance
22 requires that aeronautical fees be reasonable and not unjustly
discriminatory. FAA policy on aeronautical fees, in the Policy
Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, provides that the portion of
allocated costs among aeronautical users, which includes air carriers,
should not exceed an amount that reflects the proportionate
aeronautical use. A carrier not participating in an ACIP may be charged
an appropriate amount for its own proportionate use of the airport, but
not any additional amount to cover the shortfall in total collections
resulting from a fee reduction or waiver for a carrier participating in
an ACIP. The same policy extends to other aeronautical users of the
airport, such as general aviation tenants and operators.
     The terms of an ACIP should be made public. The Policy
Regarding Airport Rates and Charges provides that airport sponsors
should advise aeronautical users well in advance of a change in airport
charges, and provide adequate information to permit aeronautical users
to evaluate the change and the justification for the change. An ACIP
that reduces or waives fees for a participating carrier is a change in
airport fee methodology, and carriers and other aeronautical users of
the airport should be advised of a proposed ACIP incentive in advance.
While notice of an ACIP to airport users is not expressly required in
the AIP Grant Assurances, the planning and implementation of an ACIP
without notice to all eligible carriers substantially increases the
likelihood that the incentives will be considered unjustly
discriminatory. Similarly, adoption of an ACIP without notice to
carriers and other aeronautical users at the airport, or the
opportunity for those users to review the proposed ACIP terms, leaves
the airport sponsor vulnerable to a complaint that the ACIP adversely
affects the fees charged to non-participating users.
     Use of airport funds for an incentive program must not
adversely affect the resources needed for operation and maintenance of
the airport. As required by Grant Assurance 24, a sponsor adopting an
ACIP must maintain a self-sustaining rate structure that continues to
provide adequate funds for required operations and maintenance
responsibilities, without increasing rates charged to non-participating
operators or otherwise violating Grant Assurance 22.
Summary of Key Provisions
    Federal law and standard Grant Assurance language affecting ACIPs
have not changed since 2010, and FAA policy on ACIPs remains
substantially the same as stated in the 2010 Guidebook. However, the
FAA had the opportunity to review compliance with AIP Grant Assurances
under the 2010 guidance, and to consider whether a revised policy
statement could provide additional clarity in problem areas to prevent
potential noncompliance. For this reason, the proposed policy differs
to some extent from the 2010 guidance on certain elements of an ACIP.
This could affect the planning and implementation of new ACIPs and the
continuation of existing programs, and the agency is seeking industry
and public comment on the proposed guidance.
    In addition to the statement of general guiding principles, key
provisions of the new policy that differ from the 2010 Guidebook are:
    Definition of new service. The 2010 Guidebook defined new service
as:
    (a) service to an airport destination not currently served, (b)
nonstop service where no nonstop service is currently offered, (c) new
entrant carrier, and/or (d) increased frequency of flights to a
specific destination.
    The proposed policy defines new service as:
    Any nonstop service to an airport destination not currently served
with nonstop service, or any service to an airport by a new entrant
carrier.
    Only new nonstop service to a destination or any service by a new
entrant carrier qualifies as new service for the purposes of the
policy. Note that service is not considered new if any frequency of
service is provided in that market, even if the existing service is
less than 7 days a week. An increase in frequency to a destination
already served, i.e., (d) of the current definition, therefore would no
longer be considered new service, on the basis that such an increase
would not justify incentives to a carrier offering only the increased
frequency. The FAA particularly requests comments on how the proposed
definition would affect existing and planned ACIPs.
    Seasonal service. The 2010 Guidebook does not recognize repeated
seasonal service as new service. Some airport sponsors in resort and
similar destinations, with service offered only in certain months of
the year, have commented to FAA that a carrier may not have sufficient
time to market and

develop passenger business in one season. Accordingly, the proposed
policy defines seasonal service as service offered for less than 6
months a year. The proposed policy permits incentives for seasonal
service for 3 seasons, up to 3 years from the start of the service.
    Aircraft size/upgauging. The proposed policy would continue the
general policy stated in the 2010 Guidebook prohibiting an incentive
based on the type or size of aircraft. In 2011, the Clark County
Department of Aviation petitioned the FAA to permit the County to
implement an ACIP at Las Vegas McCarran Airport that would ``induce
increases in landed weight'' of air carrier aircraft, or ``upgauging.''
The County requested that the agency's definition of ``new service'' be
amended to include ``increases in landed weight.'' The FAA granted the
petition in part (77 FR 21146; April 9, 2012), with several conditions.
A carrier receiving the incentive could not contract its schedule, to
operate fewer flights with the larger aircraft or cancel other routes
at the airport. Also, upgauging could not be the only incentive in the
sponsor's ACIP. The FAA requests comment on whether or not the proposed
policy should be revised to exclude a conditional upgauging element
similar to that allowed for Clark County in 2012.
    Air cargo incentives. The policy clarifies that an ACIP may be
offered for new cargo service, separate from any ACIP offered for new
passenger service.
    Per Passenger and per seat-mile incentives. Incentives offered for
specific aircraft types or number of seats continues to be
unacceptable, because they are so easily adapted to directing
incentives to particular carriers at an airport. However, the FAA
recognizes that incentives have been offered that are related to the
number of passengers actually carried, which rewards the success of the
new service, or the seat-miles of the new service, which rewards longer
routes without limitation to particular destinations. The proposed
policy would allow both kinds of incentives, although on condition that
the incentives be structured to avoid unjust discrimination. Also, the
resulting reduction in fees could not exceed the amount of the standard
fees the carrier would have been charged without the incentive.
    Transparency. The 2010 Guidebook stated that it was advisable for
airport sponsors to consult with incumbent air carriers before
initiating an incentive program, but not required. In practice, the FAA
is aware that some airport sponsors have adopted an ACIP without
disclosing the terms or even the existence of the ACIP to other
carriers or airport users. Failure to consult with or even notify other
carriers of an incentive provided to one carrier has the very real
potential of unjust discrimination against carriers that would have
been eligible for the incentive but were not advised of it. This
discriminatory effect could apply to potential new entrant carriers not
currently serving the airport as well as the airport's current tenant
carriers. Failure to notify other carriers of an ACIP also raises a
question of whether the incentives will adversely affect the rates of
non-participating carriers, since there will be no independent review
of the funding of the incentives. There are costs to an ACIP, including
marketing costs and the replacement of standard fees that would have
been paid by a participating carrier if that carrier were not receiving
a fee reduction. An ACIP may not increase the rates charged non-
participating carriers to cover these costs, since any increase would
be a prohibited cross-subsidy of the carrier receiving the incentive.
If the terms of an ACIP are not disclosed to non-participating
carriers, there may be no way for those carriers to determine whether
their fees are affected by the ACIP.
    Accordingly, the proposed policy includes stronger direction on
disclosure of proposed ACIPs and incentives. Specifically, the FAA
expects an airport sponsor:
     To disclose, as a core element of an acceptable ACIP, the
availability and details of a planned ACIP to both incumbent carriers
and the carrier industry, and to periodically post the incentives
actually granted.
     To provide advance notice of the execution of an ACIP
agreement.
     To issue the ACIP as a separate document, rather than as a
provision in a participating carrier's lease and use agreement.
     To provide financial information on the costs and funding
of an ACIP to all aeronautical users of the airport.
    Sponsor assistance to non-sponsor ACIPs. The 2010 Guidebook
effectively prohibited airport sponsor staff from assisting or advising
a non-airport entity on an ACIP that used general community funds, not
airport funds, and was not subject to the terms of the sponsor's AIP
grant agreements. However, in many cities the airport staff is often
the best source of expertise on the airport's air service needs and the
airline industry in general. The FAA acknowledges that this prohibition
was impractical and probably not observed in practice. Accordingly, the
proposed policy would permit an airport sponsor to participate in the
use of non-airport funds for an ACIP, with certain limitations:
     An airport sponsor may use general government funds (i.e.,
non-airport revenue) for uses that would be prohibited by Grant
Assurance 25 for airport funds, including subsidy of air carrier
operations. However, the sponsor would remain subject to Grant
Assurance obligations for unjust discrimination in the use of the non-
airport funds.
     A non-sponsor entity may use its funds for an ACIP without
limitation by the airport sponsor's Grant Assurances, on two general
conditions:
    [cir] The funds may not be commingled with airport funds. If the
non-airport entity's funds are added to an airport account, the funds
will be considered airport revenues and subject to Grant Assurance 25.
    [cir] The airport sponsor may provide technical advice on airport
and air carrier matters to the non-airport entity, i.e., the local
chamber of commerce, but may not participate in the entity's decision-
making process on the use of the funds or the handling of funds. If
airport sponsor staff take any responsibility for allocation of the
funds, the use of the funds becomes subject to the sponsor's
obligations under Grant Assurance 22, prohibiting unjust
discrimination.
    Payments for marketing new service. The 2010 Guidebook recommended
that an airport sponsor pay marketing and advertising costs to the
entity providing the market services, rather than to the carrier.
However, on further reconsideration of this guidance as a
recommendation only, the FAA has concluded that placing any airport
funds at the disposal of a carrier is inconsistent with the prohibition
on use of airport funds for a carrier subsidy. Payment to the carrier
directly is also entirely unnecessary for an ACIP marketing program,
since all acceptable services will normally be provided by a third-
party contractor who can be paid directly by the sponsor as well as the
carrier. Accordingly, the proposed policy makes clear, consistent with
the revenue use statutes, that payments to a carrier will be considered
a prohibited diversion of airport revenue, and allows payments of
airport revenue for marketing only to the entity providing the
marketing services.
    Limited budget for an ACIP. The 2010 Guidebook made a distinction
between small airports and larger airports, without defining the
distinction. Small airports with a limited budget that would support
incentives for only one

carrier were encouraged to select the carrier through an RFP process,
although not required to do so. Larger airports were advised to budget
enough funds for incentives to all interested carriers. The FAA
recognizes that airports of all sizes may have reasons to limit the
budget for an ACIP, and the proposed policy does not make a distinction
among airports based on size. Similarly, the proposed policy no longer
includes a preference for use of an RFP to select a carrier for
incentives, since other processes can be acceptable. However, to avoid
undisclosed dealings with a favored carrier, for example, the FAA
expects an airport sponsor implementing an ACIP limited to one carrier
to publish information on the ACIP at least 30 days prior to entering
into a carrier agreement for incentives.
    Restart of service. As a result of the 2020-21 COVID 19 pandemic,
air carriers canceled a number of U.S. routes due to the falloff in
demand for air travel. Both air carriers and airport sponsors have
since asked the FAA for guidance on the use of incentives for service
that was subject to a prior ACIP but then cancelled during the
pandemic. Since the circumstances can vary, the proposed policy leaves
discretion to the airport sponsor on the use of incentives to restart
service previously subject to an incentive but canceled. This provision
is not to be used to extend an incentive beyond the limits otherwise
applicable under the policy, however.
    Applicability to existing ACIPs. The FAA recognizes that some ACIPs
and carrier incentives are currently in effect based on guidance in the
2010 Guidebook, and that some terms of those ACIPs may not be
consistent with the policy statement proposed in this Notice.
Accordingly, carrier incentives initiated prior to the issuance date of
this policy, under programs that complied with the FAA's previous
policy guidance, would be permitted to continue as implemented until
they expire. All such incentives will necessarily expire within 2 years
of the issuance date of a final policy statement. Regardless of the
terms of an existing ACIP, incentives initiated on or after the
issuance date of the final policy must conform to the guidance in the
final policy statement for compliance with sponsor Grant Assurances.

The Proposed Policy

    For the above reasons, the FAA is proposing the following statement
of policy on air carrier incentive programs, to supersede the Air
Carrier Incentive Program Guidebook issued in 2010.

Air Carrier Incentive Programs

    Many U.S. airport sponsors have found it beneficial to encourage
new air service and new carriers at their airports by offering air
carrier incentive programs (ACIPs), in the form of reductions or
waivers of airport charges, and/or support for marketing new service.
    ACIPs represent a limited exception to the general rule stated in
Grant Assurance 22 paragraph 22.e., guaranteeing all carriers non-
discriminatory and equivalent rates and charges for each carrier's
category. FAA has reconciled this exception with the general rule on
the understanding that a new carrier operating at an airport, or a
carrier starting a new route, operates at a disadvantage with
established carriers until the new service becomes known and accepted.
In that sense, the carrier operating new service is not similarly
situated to established carriers, and a sponsor may reduce charges to
the new service carrier in some circumstances, for a limited time,
without violating Grant Assurances 22, 23, 24, or 25.
    In considering whether an ACIP complies with a sponsor's Federal
grant agreements, the FAA will apply these general principles to the
particular elements of the ACIP:
     Discrimination between carriers participating in an ACIP
and non-participating carriers must be justified and time-limited.
Differences in airport charges for carriers under an ACIP from those
charged to other carriers at an airport must not be unjustly
discriminatory. Differences in charges must be justified by differences
in the carriers' costs of starting and marketing new service at the
airport and must be temporary.
     A sponsor may not use airport revenues to subsidize air
carriers. Using airport revenue for cash payments and other forms of
subsidy for a carrier providing new service is considered revenue
diversion and is therefore prohibited by grant agreements and Federal
law.
     A sponsor may not cross-charge non-participating carriers
or other aeronautical users to subsidize ACIP carriers. Carriers not
participating in an ACIP may not be charged for the costs of the ACIP
or for airport costs left uncovered as a result of the reduction or
waiver of charges for an ACIP carrier, unless all non-participating
carriers agree.
     The terms of an ACIP should be made public. Publishing the
intent to implement an ACIP, as well as information on how the ACIP is
being used, ensures all eligible carriers are aware of the program,
allows non-participating operators to review the potential effect of
the ACIP on standard airport rates and charges, and minimizes the
grounds for complaints of unjust discrimination.
     Use of airport funds for an ACIP must not adversely affect
airport operations or maintenance. A sponsor adopting an ACIP must
maintain a self-sustaining rate structure that continues to provide
funds for necessary operations and maintenance responsibilities,
without increasing rates charged to non-participating operators.
    Guidance on particular program elements in this policy applies
generally to each of those elements. For variations on those elements,
or program elements not specifically addressed in this guidance, the
above five principles will govern the agency's ultimate determination
of whether a particular ACIP is consistent with the sponsor's AIP Grant
Assurances.
Definitions
     New Service: Any nonstop service to an airport destination
not currently served with nonstop service, or any service to an airport
by a new entrant carrier.
     Seasonal Service: Nonstop service that is offered for less
than 6 months of the calendar year.
     New Entrant Carrier: An air carrier that was not
previously providing any air service to an airport.
     Incumbent Carrier: An air carrier already actively
providing service to an airport.
     Preexisting service: Service to any airport destination
that is currently served nonstop.
An ACIP May Contain Any of Several Elements That Do Not Unjustly
Discriminate Against Non-Participating Carriers, Consistent With Grant
Assurances 22 and 23
I. New Service v. Preexisting Service
    a. Limiting an incentive to new service is not in itself unjust
discrimination. Incentives for flights to a destination not currently
served with nonstop service may be provided for up to two years.
    b. New seasonal services (to a destination not currently served)
are allowed to receive incentives for 3 seasons of service, up to 3
years from the start of the incentive.
    c. Generally, new service incentives must be available to all
carriers offering new service on the same basis but are subject to the
distinctions permitted under Section II of this policy.

    i. However, an airport sponsor is allowed to restrict incentives
for new service if they have a limited budget. An airport sponsor is
allowed to restrict incentives to one carrier if they have disclosed to
all carriers that they are limiting incentives to only the first air
carrier that establishes new service.
    ii. Airport sponsors are expected to provide public notification of
the availability of an ACIP and post their planned incentives,
including any limits on availability, for a minimum of 30 days before
signing a contract with a carrier.
II. New Entrant Carriers
    a. Incentives for a new entrant carrier on a route not currently
served can be provided for up to two years.
    b. Incentives can be offered to new entrant carriers for providing
service to a destination already flown with nonstop service, while
excluding incumbent air carriers. In that case, the new entrant
incentives are limited to no more than one year. After one year, the
new entrant would be considered an incumbent air carrier, and similarly
situated to other carriers at the airport. This applies to new entrants
providing seasonal service as well as those providing year-round
service.
    c. Generally, new entrant incentives must be available to all new
carriers on the same basis. The ACIP may not select one new entrant and
deny the program to another new entrant.
    i. However, if an airport sponsor has a limited budget and has
disclosed to all carriers that they are restricting incentives to only
the first new entrant that enters the market, then the airport sponsor
is allowed to limit incentives to one carrier.
    ii. Airport sponsors are expected to provide public notification of
the availability of an ACIP and post their planned incentives,
including any limits on availability, for a minimum of 30 days before
signing a contract with a carrier.
III. Service Frequency
    a. It is not unjustly discriminatory to offer different levels of
incentives for different frequencies of service (i.e., daily vs less
than daily). For example, incentives typically offered for 5 days a
week service can be discounted 40% for 3 days a week service.
IV. Cargo Carriers
    a. It is not unjustly discriminatory for incentives to distinguish
between passenger and cargo carriers.
V. Per-Passenger and Per-Seat Mile Incentives
    a. Incentives on a per passenger or per seat-mile basis are not
inherently unjustly discriminatory, but the airport sponsor should
ensure that the incentives offered would not be considered a subsidy or
would result in unjust discrimination against non-participating
carriers.
    b. The total value of fee reductions offered as an incentive on a
per passenger or per seat-mile basis cannot exceed the amount of the
fees that otherwise would have been incurred by a carrier for its
operations at the airport.
VI. Aircraft Type
    a. Incentives based on aircraft type are unjustly discriminatory
because this could unreasonably exclude certain carriers that do not
operate the type of aircraft identified. Incentives for upgauging, to
the extent they are allowed, must be structured to avoid limitation to
a particular aircraft type or types.
VII. Legacy v. Low-Cost Carriers
    a. Incentives cannot target carriers with particular types of
business models (e.g., legacy, low-cost carriers), nor should they be
designed for a preferred carrier.
VIII. ACIP Transparency
    a. The FAA expects airport sponsors to provide effective
notification of the availability and implementation of ACIPs to both
incumbent and potential new entrant carriers (e.g., posting on an
airport sponsor's public website; notification to industry trade
groups). Information posted for the public should include the
incentives offered; the program eligibility criteria; identification of
the targeted or desired new service; and for incentives awarded, a
periodic listing of all carriers benefiting from the ACIP, the
incentives received, and identification of the incentivized service.
    b. An airport sponsor is expected to provide effective public
notice of an ACIP at least 30 days before signing an agreement with a
carrier to implement an incentive.
    c. To ensure transparency, an ACIP agreement should be a standalone
document, consistent with the published ACIP information, and not
embedded with any other agreement the airport sponsor and the carrier
may enter into, such as a lease or operating agreement.
    d. Airport sponsors should make information on funding for any ACIP
available to all aeronautical users at the airport, and sponsors should
be ready to provide the necessary financial documentation to
demonstrate that there is no cross-charging and that the program has no
effect on rates and charges of other aeronautical users.
An ACIP May Not Include Direct or Indirect Subsidies of Air Carriers,
as Prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 47133 and 49 U.S.C. 47107, and Grant
Assurance 25
I. Incentives v. Subsidies
    a. A subsidy occurs when airport funds flow, under all
circumstances or conditionally, to a carrier with no goods or services
being provided to the airport in return. For this purpose, air service
is not considered a ``service'' provided to the airport. Any incentives
where airport funds or assets (e.g., fuel) are transferred to a
carrier, directly or indirectly (e.g., revenue or loan guarantees)
would be regarded as prohibited subsidies.
    b. A waiver of costs that an airport sponsor would otherwise charge
a carrier (e.g., landing fees or terminal rents) is not considered a
subsidy, if for a limited duration consistent with the policies above.
However, a waiver or assumption of costs that would normally be charged
by a third party (ground handling, fuel, etc.) would be considered a
subsidy and is not permissible for an ACIP. Incentives tied to specific
customer service metrics (on-time performance, luggage delivery, etc.)
are also not permissible.
II. Airport v. Non-Airport Revenues and Application to Subsidies and
Other Revenue Guarantees
    a. Airport sponsors are prohibited from using airport funds to
subsidize air carrier operations.
    b. A sponsor local government may use non-airport funds for
subsidies and other uses that would be prohibited if airport funds were
used. However, any use of funds would still need to meet Grant
Assurance obligations prohibiting unjust discrimination.
    c. Local governments and community organizations not party to an
AIP grant agreement, however, can use non-airport funds for incentives
that would not be permissible for an obligated airport sponsor,
including directing incentives toward a specific carrier and using
their non-airport funds for revenue guarantees.
    i. If a local government or community organization chooses to fund
a program to support new air service using non-airport funds, those
funds may not be commingled with airport funds. Any funds placed in an
airport's account are treated as airport revenues. As long as community
incentives are kept separate

from airport funds, the community organization's funding would not be
considered airport revenue and therefore not subject to its special
requirements.
    ii. Airport staff can provide technical assistance to non-airport
entities regarding ACIPs that do not use airport revenue, where the
non-airport entity, and not the airport sponsor, is the agency
responsible for decisions on expenditure of the funds. The role of
airport staff can be advisory, but the airport staff cannot be involved
in the decision-making process or handle non-airport funds. The airport
staff's assistance may include:
    1. Guidance on the economic viability of prospective markets.
    2. Understanding of carrier business models and aircraft
performance characteristics.
    3. Information on the availability of the airport sponsor's ACIP to
support the new service within the limits described in this policy.
III. Marketing Incentives
    a. Airport sponsors are permitted to contribute to the marketing of
new service, but funds must flow directly to the marketing provider;
transferring funds to a carrier is considered a prohibited subsidy.
    b. A marketing program must promote use of the airport. Use of
airport funds for general economic development or for marketing and
promotional activities unrelated to the airport is prohibited by 49
U.S.C. 47107(k)(2)(B).
IV. Incentives for Individual Travelers
    a. Airport sponsors are prohibited from offering cash incentives to
travelers for flying a route, as this indirectly subsidizes the carrier
serving that route.
    b. However, airport sponsors are allowed to offer coupons for food,
parking or other benefits tied to general use of the airport, as long
as the benefit is not restricted to passengers who fly a specific
carrier or route.
An ACIP May Not Result in an Increase in Charges for Non-Participating
Carriers or Other Aeronautical Users of the Airport
I. An ACIP may not increase fees charged to non-participating carriers
or other aeronautical users and tenants of the airport subject to the
requirement for reasonable fees under 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(1) and Grant
Assurance 22.

    a. The costs of an ACIP may not be passed on to non-participating
carriers or other aeronautical users in any form. The costs of an ACIP
include direct costs, such as marketing, and the general costs of
airport operation and maintenance that are not covered by the carrier
in an ACIP as a result of a reduction or waiver of fees.
    b. An acceptable ACIP will not result in an increase in the sponsor
charges to non-participating carriers, i.e., on the charges that
carriers would have paid in the absence of the incentivized service.
    c. For an airport sponsor with a residual fee methodology, an ACIP
may not reduce the residual payment to non-participating carriers each
year.
An ACIP May Not Adversely Affect an Airport's Self-Sustaining Rate
Structure, as Required by Grant Assurance 24
I. An ACIP must be funded from a source that not only does not increase
rates for non-participating parties, but also does not involve the use
of funds necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the
airport.
FAA Oversight/Administration
I. Restart of Previous Service
    a. Airport sponsors can use their own discretion when choosing
whether to offer incentives for a carrier to re-start service that the
same carrier had offered previously but cancelled either due to
significant external circumstances (e.g., an extreme natural, manmade,
or public health crisis, such as hurricanes, terrorism, pandemic) or
poor route performance in past years.
    b. In any event, discretion for service re-start may not be used to
extend an incentive beyond the limits provided in this policy.
II. FAA Review
    a. At an airport sponsor's request, the FAA will review an ACIP for
compliance with the sponsor's Federal obligations. The FAA does not
approve ACIPs.
III. Existing Incentives
    a. Existing carrier incentives initiated prior to the issuance date
of this policy, under programs that complied with the FAA's previous
policy guidance, may continue as implemented until they expire. All
such incentives will expire within 2 years of the issuance date of this
policy statement. Incentives provided on or after the issuance date of
this policy must conform to the guidance in this policy statement.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Kevin C. Willis,
Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2023-01611 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74686-74687]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2012-1047]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0089,
National Recreational Boating Survey. Our ICR describes the information
we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA,
the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 15,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2012-1047] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, US COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND ST SW. STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2012-1047], and
must be received by February 15, 2013. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use

their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2012-1047], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use
only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via
www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver,
or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF. We recommend you
include your name, mailing address, an email address, or other contact
information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if
we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2012-1047'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8-1/2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and will
address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-1047'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    Title: National Recreational Boating Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0089.
    Summary: The Coast Guard National Recreational Boating Survey
collects data on recreational boating participation and exposure to
hazards. The goal is for the Boating Safety division to draw a general
statistical profile of the U.S. recreational boating population. Of
particular importance will be statistics on the type of boats used,
activities associated with them, boat operators' knowledge of safety
measures, and duration of a typical boating day (referred to as
``exposure''). Exposure data will be used to derive a reliable measure
of the risk associated with recreational boating that can be used in
all jurisdictions.
    Need: The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 determines the framework
of the Coast Guard Recreational Boating Safety Program. This Program,
as set forth in 46 U.S.C., Chapter 131, requires the Coast Guard to
``encourage greater State participation and uniformity in boating
safety efforts, and particularly to permit the States to assume a
greater share of boating safety education, assistance, and enforcement
activities.'' See 46 U.S.C. 13102. The Coast Guard's Boating Safety
division achieves these goals by providing timely and relevant
information on subject activities that occur in each respective
jurisdiction. The boating information provided by the Coast Guard
enables each State agency to tailor and implement safety initiatives
addressing specific needs of boaters in local jurisdictions. The
primary objective of this collection is to provide the Coast Guard with
the required information in a format suitable to effectively manage the
program.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Recreational boating participants and owners of
recreational vessels.
     Frequency: Every two years.
    Burden Estimate: This is a biennial requirement. The estimated
burden has increased from 10,880 hours to 13,050 hours a year.

    Dated: December 10, 2012.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-30279 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, May 16, 2022 6:55 PM
To:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Batten<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Handouts for meeting to discuss coke RTR status - 3:30 Wed 5/18 (TEAMS)

David, Katie - Here is the summary material for our Coke RTR status update meeting this week.
I'm sure you will have questions, which we will address on Wednesday.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

<< CokeOvens.RTR-Industry-update-05-16-22.pdf >>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41284-41285]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14283]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 271 and 272

[EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0174; FRL-9947-05-Region 8]

Wyoming: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant authorization to the State of Wyoming for the changes to its
hazardous waste program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements
needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the
state's changes through a direct final action. In addition, the EPA is
proposing to codify in the regulations entitled ``Approved State
Hazardous Waste Management Programs,'' Wyoming's authorized hazardous
waste program. The EPA will incorporate by reference into the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions of the State regulations
that are authorized and that the EPA will enforce under RCRA.

DATES: Send written comments by July 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
RCRA-2016-0174 by mail to Christina Cosentini, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail Code 8P-
R, Denver, Colorado 80202. You may also submit comments electronically
or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions
in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Cosentini at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register, the EPA is authorizing changes to the Wyoming
program, in addition to codifying and incorporating by reference the
State's hazardous waste program as a direct final rule. The EPA did not
make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe these
actions are not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose

them. We have explained the reasons for this authorization and
incorporation by reference in the preamble to the direct final rule.
    Unless EPA receives written comments that oppose the authorization
and incorporation by reference during the comment period, the direct
final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we
will not take further action on this proposal. If we get comments that
oppose the authorization, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it
will not take immediate effect. We will then respond to public comments
in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another
opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you
must do so at this time.

    Dated: May 11, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-14283 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50366-50369]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21747]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0586; FRL-9983-38]

A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals
for Prioritization; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the availability of a document: A
Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for
Prioritization. The document lays out EPA's near-term approach for
identifying potential chemicals for prioritization, the initial step in
evaluating the safety of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). The document also includes a longer-term risk-based
approach for considering the larger TSCA active chemical universe. EPA
is opening a public docket to accept comments on this approach, which
will inform a public meeting to be held in early 2019. This docket will
remain open until November 15, 2018. In a related but separate action,
EPA is opening 74 public dockets, one for each of the 73 remaining
chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical
Assessments that have not received manufacturer requests for EPA
evaluation and an additional general docket for chemicals not on the
Work Plan. These dockets will be open until December 1, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information on A Working Approach for Identifying
Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization document contact:
Susanna Blair, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including chemical
manufacturers, processors and users, consumer product companies, non-
profit organizations in the environmental and public health sectors,
state and local government agencies, and members of the public
interested in the environmental and human health assessment and
regulation of chemical substances. Since others also may be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is taking three actions: Announcing the availability of a
document, announcing the opening of a docket to accept comments on the
longer-term strategy described in the document, and announcing the
opening of chemical-specific public dockets and a general docket to
collect information on potential candidate chemicals for prioritization
for risk evaluation under TSCA.
    This Notice announces the availability of a document: A Working
Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for
Prioritization. The document lays out EPA's near-term approach for
identifying potential chemicals for prioritization, the initial step in
evaluating the safety of existing chemicals under TSCA. The document
also includes a longer-term approach for considering the larger TSCA
active chemical universe. The document is available at EPA's website at
https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/prioritizing-existing-chemicals-risk-evaluation.
    EPA is opening a public docket to accept comments on this longer-
term approach, which will inform a public meeting to be held in early
2019. This docket, identified by docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0659, will
remain open until November 15, 2018.
    In a separate but related action, EPA is opening 74 public dockets,
one for each of the 73 remaining chemicals on the 2014 Update to the
TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that have not received
manufacturer requests for EPA evaluation and an additional general
docket for chemicals not on the Work Plan. These dockets will be open
until December 1, 2019. More details about these dockets is in Unit
II.B.

C. What is the Agency's authority for this action?

    As amended in June 2016, TSCA requires that EPA prioritize and
evaluate existing chemical substances and manage identified risks (15
U.S.C. 2605). This Notice is issued pursuant to the authority in TSCA
section 6(b), 15 U.S.C. 2605(b).

II. Background

    The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,
amending the TSCA of 1976, was signed into law on June 22, 2016. The
amendments required that EPA establish procedures for prioritizing and
evaluating risks from existing chemical substances. EPA announced its
final procedures on June 22, 2017 (see https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/federal-register-notice-procedures-prioritization), and the final procedural rule addressing the
prioritization process published in the Federal Register on July 20,
2017 (82 FR 33753) (FRL-9964-24).

A. A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for
Prioritization

    The document described in this Notice lays out EPA's near-term
approach for identifying potential chemicals for prioritization, the
initial step in evaluating the safety of existing chemicals under TSCA.
Building on the Agency's commitment to work with the public to select
the next chemicals for risk evaluation, this approach reflects public
input received at a December 2017 meeting (82 FR 51415) (FRL-9970-34)
and through the public docket for that meeting (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0587).
By December 2019, EPA must designate at least 20 chemical substances as
High-Priority for risk evaluation, and 20 chemical substances as Low-
Priority for which risk evaluation is not currently warranted.
    The information set forth in the document, A Working Approach for
Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization, describes
the general approaches EPA may consider for identifying existing
chemicals as potential candidates for prioritization. The goal of these
approaches is to identify potential candidates from which EPA will
select candidates for prioritization, consistent with its regulations
at 40 CFR 702.5.
    The document describes the near-term approach that EPA anticipates
using to inform the identification of potential candidates for the
initial 20 High-Priority and 20 Low-Priority chemical substances that
must be identified pursuant to TSCA section 6(b)(2)(B). The document
also presents a longer-term approach that EPA is considering. EPA
encourages public comments on these approaches and has opened dockets
to receive public comments.
    The document presents internal guidance for EPA, and neither
constitutes rulemaking by EPA nor can be relied on to create a
substantive or procedural right enforceable by any party in litigation
with the United States. It provides recommendations and does not impose
any legally binding requirements. Similarly, statements about what EPA
expects or intends to do reflect general principles to guide EPA's
activities and not judgments or determinations as to what EPA will do
in any particular case.

B. Dockets To Collect Information on Potential Candidate Chemicals for
Prioritization for Risk Evaluation

    As explained in the Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for
Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act Final rule
published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2017 (82 FR 33753) (FRL-
9964-24), EPA intends to foster a dialogue with stakeholders by
publishing a notice explaining why it chose to initiate the
prioritization process on particular chemical substances and to seek
relevant information from the public. In support of that intention, EPA
is opening 74 public dockets, one for each of the 73 remaining
chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical
Assessments that have not received manufacturer requests for EPA
evaluation and an additional general docket for the public to suggest
chemicals EPA should prioritize for risk evaluation.
    By providing the public with a venue for submitting use, hazard,
and exposure information on these chemicals, EPA is facilitating the
sharing of information by stakeholders and the general public that
could update the information EPA currently has on the chemicals on the
2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. EPA will
use this data to inform TSCA prioritization and risk evaluation for
these chemicals.
    EPA is also opening dockets for input on chemicals not on the 2014
Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. EPA expects that
the dockets will increase transparency of the process.
    The list of chemical dockets is in this section. Additional
information, such as the docket numbers for each chemical, the
chemical's Chemical Abstract

Services Registry Number, and the EPA points of contact can be found at
http://www.epa.govADDURLXXX. EPA is opening these dockets to receive
information from the public. Information should be submitted by
December 1, 2019. When you submit your information, please identify the
docket identification (ID) number associated with the relevant
chemical. Additional instructions on providing information or visiting
the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is
available in each docket and at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. When
preparing and submitting your information, see the tips at http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#tips.
    The chemicals as listed on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan
for Chemical Assessments and the respective docket numbers are:
     Acetaldehyde (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0497).
     Acrylonitrile (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0449).
     tert-Amyl methyl ether (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0463).
     Antimony and Antimony Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0470).
     Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0472).
     Barium Carbonate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0473).
     Benzenamine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0474).
     Benzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0475).
     Bisphenol A (BPA) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0500).
     1,3-Butadiene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0451).
     Butanamide, 2,2'-[(3,3'- dichloro[1,1'- biphenyl]- 4,4'-
diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N- (4-chloro-2,5 dimethoxyphenyl)-3-oxo- (Pigment
Yellow 83) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0477).
     Butanamide, 2-[(4- methoxy-2-nitrophenyl) azo]-N-(2-
methoxyphenyl)-3-oxo- (Pigment Yellow 65) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0478).
     Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic
acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0501).
     4-sec-Butyl-2,6-di-tert- butylphenol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0495).
     Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0479).
     Chromium and Chromium Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0480).
     Cobalt and Cobalt Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0481).
     Creosotes (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0502).
     Cyanide Compounds (Limited to dissociable compounds) (EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2018-0482).
     Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid,
1,2- dibutyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0503).
     o-Dichlorobenzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0444).
     p-Dichlorobenzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0446).
     3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0494).
     3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0493).
     1,1-Dichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0426).
     1,2-Dichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0427).
     trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0465).
     1,2-Dichloropropane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0428).
     Dicyclohexyl phthalate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0504).
     Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic
acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0433).
     Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic
acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0434).
     Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic
acid, 1,2- diisodecyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0435).
     Di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic
acid, 1,2- diisononyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0436).
     1,2-Dimethoxyethane (Monoglyme) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0429).
     2-Dimethylaminoethanol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0489).
     Di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic
acid, 1,2- dioctyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0437).
     Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- octahydro-2,3,5,5-
tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0483).
     Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- octahydro-2,3,8,8-
tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0484).
     Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-
tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0485).
     Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-
tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0486).
     Ethylbenzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0487).
     Ethylene dibromide (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0488).
     bis(2-Ethylhexyl) adipate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0499).
     2-Ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5- tetrabromobenzoate (TBB) (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2018-0491).
     bis(2-Ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH) (EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2018-0498).
     Formaldehyde (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0438).
     2,5-Furandione (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0471).
     1-Hexadecanol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0469).
     1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8- hexamethylcyclopenta
[g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0430).
     2-Hydroxy-4-(octyloxy) benzophenone (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0492).
     Lead and Lead Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0452).
     Long-chain chlorinated paraffins (C18-20) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2018-0439).
     Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (C14-17) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2018-0440).
     4,4'-Methylene bis(2- chloroaniline) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0464).
     4,4'-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA)
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0462).
     Molybdenum and Molybdenum Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0453).
     Naphthalene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0454).
     2- Naphthalenecarboxylic acid, 4-[(4-chloro-5- methyl-2-
sulfophenyl) azo]-3-hydroxy-, calcium salt (1:1) (Pigment Red 52) (EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2018-0460).
     Nickel and Nickel Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0455).
     N-Nitroso- diphenylamine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0456).
     Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NP/NPEs) (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2018-0442).
     Octamethylcyclotetra- siloxane (D4) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0443).
     4-tert-Octylphenol (4-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)- phenol)
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0496).
     p,p'- Oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0457).
     Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0458).
     Phthalic anhydride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0459).
     Styrene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0461).
     Tribromomethane (Bromoform) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0466).
     1,1,2-Trichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0421).
     Triglycidyl isocyanurate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0467).
     Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0476).

     Vinyl chloride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0448).
     m-Xylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0441).
     o-Xylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0445).
     p-Xylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0447).
    In addition, EPA is interested in the public's input on chemicals
not on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments
for consideration as potential candidates for prioritization under
TSCA. EPA welcomes the submittal of information to the docket that
would support the consideration of the chemicals suggested, such as
information on use, hazard, and exposure. EPA is opening docket number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0592 for this purpose.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: September 27, 2018.
Jeffery T. Morris,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018-21747 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67858-67860]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26609]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0503; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-19]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Establishment of Class E
Airspace; La Crosse, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class D airspace, the Class E surface
airspace, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface, and establishes a Class E airspace area designated as an
extension to Class D and Class E surface areas at La Crosse Regional
Airport, La Crosse, WI. This action is due to an airspace review caused
by the decommissioning of the La Crosse VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)
navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the
instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the La
Crosse Regional Airport and the name of La Crosse Regional Airport and
Mayo Clinic Health System-Franciscan Healthcare, La Crosse, WI, are
also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 26, 2020. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

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, the Class E surface airspace, and the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and
establishes a Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class
D and Class E surface areas at La Crosse Regional Airport, La Crosse,
WI, to support IFR operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (84 FR 35049; July 22, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0503 to
amend the Class D airspace, the Class E surface airspace, and the Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and
establish a Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D
and Class E surface areas at La Crosse Regional Airport, La Crosse, WI.
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 paragraph
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated
August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, 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 the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71:
    Amends the Class D airspace at La Crosse Regional Airport, La
Crosse, WI, by updating the name (previously La Crosse Municipal
Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database; and replaces the outdated term ``Airport/
Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    Amends the Class E surface airspace at La Crosse Regional Airport
by updating the name (previously La Crosse Municipal Airport) and
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database; adding an altitude limit of 3,200 feet MSL; and
replaces the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart
Supplement'';
    Establishes a Class E airspace area designated as an extension to
Class D and Class E surface areas at La Crosse Regional Airport within
1 mile each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional
Airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.3 miles
north of the airport; within 1 mile each side of the 359[deg] bearing
from the La Crosse Regional: RWY 18-LOC extending from the 4.4-mile
radius of the La Crosse Regional Airport to 5.3 miles north of the La
Crosse Regional: RWY 18-LOC; within 1 mile each side of the 036[deg]
bearing from the La Crosse Regional Airport extending from the 4.4-mile
radius of the airport to 6.2 miles northeast of the airport; within 1
mile each side of the 119[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional
Airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.7 miles
east of the airport; and within 1 mile each side of the 216[deg]
bearing from the La Crosse Regional Airport extending from the 4.4-mile
radius of the airport to 5.6 miles southwest of the airport;
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at La Crosse Regional Airport by updating the name
(previously La Crosse Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of
La Crosse Regional Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database; removes the La Crosse VOR/DME and the associated extension
from the airspace legal description; updates the name of Mayo Clinic
Health System-Franciscan Healthcare (previously Saint Francis Medical
Center) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; adds an
extension 1 mile each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the La Crosse
Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius of the airport to
7.1 miles north of the airport; adds an extension within 2.9 miles each
side of the 036[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional Airport
extending from the 6.9-mile radius of the airport to 9.6 miles
northeast of the airport; adds an extension 1 mile each side of the
119[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional Airport extending from the
6.9-mile radius of the airport to 7.4 miles southeast of the airport;
and adds an extension 2 miles each side of the 216[deg] bearing from
the La Crosse Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius of
the airport to 11.3 miles southwest of the airport.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the La Crosse VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR MON Program.

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
7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8,
2019, and effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL WI D La Crosse, WI [Amended]

La Crosse Regional Airport, WI
    (Lat. 43[deg]52'45'' N, long. 91[deg]15'24'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,200 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of La Crosse Regional
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published
in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area.

* * * * *

AGL WI E2 La Crosse, WI [Amended]

La Crosse Regional Airport, WI
    (Lat. 43[deg]52'45'' N, long. 91[deg]15'24'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,200 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of La Crosse Regional
Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published
in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AGL WI E4 La Crosse, WI [Establish]

La Crosse Regional Airport, WI
    (Lat. 43[deg]52'45'' N, long. 91[deg]15'24'' W)

La Crosse Regional: RWY 18-LOC
    (Lat. 43[deg]52'01'' N, long. 91[deg]15'31'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional
Airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.3
miles north of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the
359[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional: RWY 18-LOC extending
from the 4.4-mile radius of the La Crosse Regional Airport to 5.3
miles north of the La Crosse Regional: RWY 18-LOC, and within 1 mile
each side of the 036[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional
Airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 6.2
miles northeast of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the
119[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional Airport extending from
the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.7 miles east of the airport,
and within 1 mile each side of the 216[deg] bearing from the La
Crosse Regional Airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the
airport to 5.6 miles southwest of the airport.

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

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 La Crosse, WI [Amended]

La Crosse Regional Airport, WI
    (Lat. 43[deg]52'45'' N, long. 91[deg]15'24'' W)

Mayo Clinic Health System-Franciscan Healthcare, WI, Point In Space
Coordinates
    (Lat. 43[deg]47'39'' N, long. 91[deg]14'00'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of La Crosse Regional Airport, and within 1
mile each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional
Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 7.1 miles north of the
airport, and within 2.9 miles each side of the 036[deg] bearing from
the La Crosse Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to
9.6 mile northeast of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of
the 119[deg] bearing from the La Crosse Regional Airport extending
from the 6.9-mile radius from the airport to 7.4 mile southeast of
the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 216[deg] bearing
from the La Crosse Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile
radius to 11.3 miles southwest of the airport, and within a 6-mile
radius of the point in space serving Mayo Clinic Health System-
Franciscan Healthcare.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 4, 2019.
Steve Szukala,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-26609 Filed 12-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P