[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8187-8190]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0167; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-029-AD;
Amendment 39-15374; AD 2008-04-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD requires
inspecting all barrel nuts to determine if the barrel nuts have a
certain marking, inspecting affected bolts to determine if the bolts
are pre-loaded correctly, and replacing all hardware if the pre-load is
incorrect. For airplanes on which the pre-load is correct, this AD
requires doing repetitive visual inspections for cracking of the barrel
nuts and cradles and replacing all hardware for all cracked barrel
nuts. This AD also requires replacement of all hardware for certain
affected barrel nuts that do not have cracking, which would end the
repetitive inspections for those airplanes. This AD also provides an
optional replacement for all affected barrel nuts. This AD results from
reports of cracking in the barrel nuts at the four primary front spar
wing-to-fuselage attachment joints. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-
fuselage joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 13, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 13,
2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pong Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness
authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on
certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. TCCA advises that
during scheduled maintenance, an operator found cracks in the barrel
nut at one of the four primary front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment
joints. Investigation

determined that the cracks were due to hydrogen embrittlement and that
the problem is likely restricted to a batch of 166 barrel nuts from one
supplier. In addition, another operator has reported finding cracked
barrel nuts at three of the four wing front spar wing-to-fuselage
joints on one aircraft. All three barrel nuts were from the suspect
batch. Cracking of the barrel nuts, if not detected and corrected,
could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage
attachments and consequent detachment of the wing.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A,
dated February 6, 2008. The service bulletin describes the following
procedures:
     Determining whether the inboard and outboard bolts are
correctly pre-loaded.
     Replacing all hardware at locations where the pre-load is
incorrect.
     Doing a visual inspection of the barrel nut and cradle for
cracking.
     Replacing cracked barrel nuts with all new hardware.
     Doing an inspection for certain markings of the barrel
nuts.
     Replacing barrel nuts having the affected markings.

TCCA mandated the service bulletin and issued Canadian emergency
airworthiness directive CF-2008-11, dated February 5, 2008, to ensure
the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    These airplanes are manufactured in Canada and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings,
evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to
issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
    Therefore, we are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of
the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage
attachments and consequent detachment of the wing.
    This AD requires the following actions:
     Inspecting all barrel nuts to determine if the barrel nuts
have a marking of LH7940T SPS 01 (all barrel nuts with this marking
will also have a yellow dot identifier).
     Inspecting (repetitively) affected bolts to determine if
the bolts are pre-loaded correctly.
     Replacing all hardware if the pre-load is incorrect.
     Doing repetitive visual inspections for cracking of the
barrel nuts and cradles for airplanes on which the pre-load is correct.
     Replacing all hardware for all cracked barrel nuts.
     Replacing all hardware for certain affected barrel nuts
that do not have cracking, which would end the repetitive inspections
for those airplanes. This AD also provides an optional replacement for
all affected barrel nuts.

Differences Between the AD and Canadian Emergency Airworthiness
Directive

    The Canadian emergency airworthiness directive recommends
accomplishing the inspection of the barrel nuts within 100 flight
hours. We have determined, however, that the inspection must be done
within 50 flight hours to adequately address the unsafe condition. In
developing an appropriate compliance time for all airplanes that are
affected by this AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's
recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing
the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected
fleet, and the time necessary to perform the required inspections. We
have coordinated this difference with TCCA.
    We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering
requiring the replacement of all hardware for all barrel nuts
identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, as required by the
Canadian emergency airworthiness directive. However, the planned
compliance time for the replacement would allow enough time to provide
notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the
modification. In order to ensure continued operational safety in the
interim, this AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the
suspect barrel nuts every 100 flight hours until the replacement is
done.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage
joints could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-
fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. Because of
our requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft and thus, the
critical need to assure the structural integrity of the front spar
wing-to-fuselage attachment joints and the short compliance time
involved with this action, this AD must be issued immediately.
    Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2008-0167; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-029-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2008-04-02 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Amendment
39-15374. Docket No. FAA-2008-0167; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
029-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective February 13, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401,
and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category; serial
numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4176 inclusive.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of cracking in the barrel nuts
at the four primary front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment joints.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the barrel
nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage
attachments and consequent detachment of the wing.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (f) Within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
inspect all barrel nuts, part number DSC228-16, to determine if the
barrel nuts are identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Inspect
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6,
2008.
    (1) If no barrel nuts are identified with a marking of LH7940T
SPS 01, no further actions are required by this paragraph.
    (2) If any barrel nut is found that is identified with a marking
of LH7940T SPS 01, before further flight, inspect the inboard and
outboard bolts to determine if the bolts are pre-loaded correctly.
Inspect in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated
February 6, 2008.
    (i) If the pre-load is incorrect (i.e., the ring can be
rotated), before further flight, replace all hardware at that
location in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
alert service bulletin.
    (ii) If the preload is correct, before further flight, do a
visual inspection for cracking of the barrel nuts and cradles in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service
bulletin.
    (A) If no cracking of the barrel nut and cradle is found, do the
applicable action required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (B) If no cracking of the barrel nut is found and only cracking
of the cradle is found, no action is required by this paragraph
provided that the applicable corrective action specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD is done.
    (C) If any cracking of the barrel nut is found, before next
flight, replace all hardware only at that location in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
    (g) For any barrel nuts on which no cracking of the barrel nut
was found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of
this AD, do the applicable corrective action specified in paragraph
(g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD at the
compliance time specified in the applicable paragraph.
    (1) If four barrel nuts having no cracking are found, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and
(g)(1)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 50 flight hours after doing the inspection required
by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified
in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at
intervals not to exceed 50 flight hours until the replacement
specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is done.
    (ii) Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required
by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware at the
left-hand outboard location and the right-hand outboard location in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert
Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
Replacing the barrel nuts on the outboard locations terminates the
requirement to do the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) of this AD.
    (iii) Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement
required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel
nuts identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat
the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the
replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the
inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19,
Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
    (2) If three barrel nuts having no cracking are found, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and
(g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 50 flight hours after doing the inspection required
by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified
in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at
intervals not to exceed 50 flight hours until the replacement
specified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD is done.
    (ii) Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required
by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware for one
affected barrel nut at the outboard location, on the side with two
affected barrel nuts, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19,
Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Replacing the barrel nut on the
outboard location terminates the requirement to do the repetitive
inspections specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD.
    (iii) Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement
required by paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel
nuts identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat
the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the
replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the
inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19,
Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
    (3) If two barrel nuts having no cracking are found and both
nuts are on the same side, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), and (g)(3)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required
by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified
in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at
intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement
specified in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this AD is done.

    (ii) Within 500 flight hours after doing the inspection required
by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware for one
affected barrel nut at the outboard location that has two affected
barrel nuts in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated
February 6, 2008. Replacing the barrel nut on the outboard location
terminates the requirement to do the repetitive inspections
specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this AD.
    (iii) Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement
required by paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel
nut identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat
the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the
replacement of all hardware at that location is done. Do the
inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19,
Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
    (4) If two barrel nuts having no cracking are found and are on
opposite sides, within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection
required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the
inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the
replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the
inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19,
Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
    (5) If one barrel nut having no cracking is found, within 100
flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals
not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware
at that location is done. Do the inspection and replacement in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert
Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.

Optional Replacement

    (h) Replacement of all hardware for all barrel nuts, part number
DSC228-16, identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, constitutes
terminating action for this AD. Replacement must be done in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert
Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.

Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Alert Service
Bulletin

    (i) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, dated
February 1, 2008, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in this AD.

Actions Accomplished According to Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A84-57-18

    (j) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-18, dated January 16, 2008, were
accomplished before the effective date of this AD and on which no
barrel nuts were found that were identified with a marking of
LH7940T SPS 01: No further action is required by this AD.

Parts Installation

    (k) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
barrel nut, part number DSC228-16, identified with a marking of
LH7940T SPS 01, on any airplane.

Special Flight Permit

    (l) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), may be issued to operate the airplane to a location
where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished but
concurrence by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, is required prior to issuance of the special flight permit.
Before using any approved special flight permits, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Special
flight permits may be permitted provided that the conditions
specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4), and (l)(5) of
this AD are met.
    (1) Both the right-hand side and left-hand side of the airplane
must have at least one barrel nut that is not within the suspect
batch (i.e., barrel nut is not identified with a marking of LH7940T
SPS 01). The barrel nuts that are not within the suspect batch must
be in good working condition (i.e., no cracking of the barrel nut).
    (2) No passengers and no cargo are onboard.
    (3) Airplane must operate in fair weather conditions with a low
risk of turbulence.
    (4) Airplane must operate with reduced airspeed. For further
information, contact Bombardier, Q Series 24 Hour Service Customer
Response Center, at: Tel: 1-416-375-4000; Fax: 1-416-375-4539; E-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (5) All of the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1),
(l)(2), (l)(3), and (l)(4) of this AD are on a case-by-case basis.
Contact your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO,
for assistance.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Related Information

    (n) Canadian emergency airworthiness directive CF-2008-11, dated
February 5, 2008.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (o) You must use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19,
Revision A, dated February 6, 2008, to perform the actions that are
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123
Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for a copy of
this service information. You may review copies at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html
.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 7, 2008.
Kevin Hull,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-2747 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65719-65720]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. P-14263-000]

Wyco Power and Water, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On September 1, 2011, Wyco Power and Water, Inc. filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Regional Watershed Supply Project. The project would consist of
hydropower development along a proposed 501-mile-long buried water
supply pipeline that would extend from two points of diversion in
Wyoming (one from the Green River and one from Flaming Gorge Reservoir)
to a storage terminus near Pueblo, Colorado. The pipeline would be
located in Adams, Arapahoe, Elbert, El Paso, Larimer, Pueblo, and Weld
Counties in Colorado; and Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater
Counties in Wyoming.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application for its
proposed hydroelectric facilities during the permit term. Because the
Commission would only have jurisdiction with regard to the proposed
hydroelectric development, only one component of the proposed 501-mile-
long water supply pipeline project, construction of substantial parts
of this proposed pipeline may require permits from other federal
agencies.
    A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would direct water obtained from the Green
River basin to southeastern Wyoming and the Front Range of Colorado for
use by municipalities, agriculture, and hydropower. Along the pipeline
route, the project would include two pumped storage hydroelectric
developments and five conventional hydropower developments, with a
total installed capacity of about 550 megawatts (MW). The project would
consist of the following: (1) A water withdrawal facility on Flaming
Gorge reservoir and a second facility on the Green River; (2) about
nine natural-gas-powered pump stations; (3) about 501 miles of buried
pipeline (between 72 and 120 inches in diameter); (4) the 240-MW Lake
Hattie Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Development, using a new reservoir
on Sheep Mountain as the upper reservoir and the existing Lake Hattie
reservoir as the lower reservoir; (5) the 240-MW Wild Horse Canyon
Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Development, with a new 10,300 acre-foot
upper reservoir and a new lower reservoir; (6) five conventional 14-MW
in-line hydroelectric developments; and (7) seven proposed transmission
lines, about 30.59 miles in length, extending

from the switchyards near the seven proposed powerhouses to the
interconnected system.
    For water distribution purposes, the project would also include
four reservoirs: (1) The proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir (185,000 acre-
feet in capacity), near Fort Collins, Colorado; (2) the proposed T-
Cross Reservoir (25,000 acre-feet in capacity) in El Paso County,
Colorado; (3) a new reservoir along the western part of the pipeline
system to manage withdrawals from the Green River; and (4) a terminus
reservoir near Pueblo, Colorado.
    Applicant Contact: Aaron Million, Wyco Power and Water, Inc., 1436
West Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80521, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Jim Fargo; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http:/ /www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14263-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27428 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12146-12147]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Proposed Amendment of the Miami, FL, Class B Airspace; and the
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Class C Airspace Areas; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT

ACTION: Meeting announcement.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing a fact-finding informal airspace meeting
regarding a plan to modify the Miami, FL, Class B Airspace, and the
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Class C Airspace areas. The purpose of the meeting
is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present views,
recommendations, and comments on any proposed change to the airspace.
All comments received during the meeting will be considered prior to
any revision or issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 12, 2019, from 3:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the following location: Broward
College, South Campus Building 69, Room 133, 7200 Pines Blvd., Pembroke
Pines, FL 33024.
    Comments: Send comments on the proposal, in triplicate, to: Ryan
Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Area, Air
Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation

Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA, 30320; or via email to: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Hildebidle, Manager, Miami ATCT/
TRACON, 6400 NW 22nd St., Miami, FL 33122. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Procedures

    (a) The meeting will be informal in nature and will be conducted by
one or more representatives of the FAA Eastern Service Area. A
representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the planned
airspace modifications. Each participant will be given an opportunity
to deliver comments or make a presentation, although a time limit may
be imposed to accommodate closing times. Only comments concerning the
plan to modify the Miami, FL, Class B Airspace, and the Fort
Lauderdale, FL, Class C Airspace areas will be accepted.
    (b) The meeting will be open to all persons on a space-available
basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and
participate.
    (c) Any person wishing to make a presentation will be asked to sign
in so those time frames can be established. This will permit the panel
to allocate an appropriate amount of time for each presenter. This
meeting will not be adjourned until everyone on the list has had an
opportunity to address the panel. This meeting may be adjourned at any
time if all persons present have had an opportunity to speak.
    (d) Position papers or other handout material relating to the
substance of the meeting will be accepted. Participants submitting
handout materials should present an original and two copies to the
presiding officer. There should be an adequate number of copies for
distribution to all participants.
    (e) This meeting will not be formally recorded. However, a summary
of the comments made at the meeting will be filed in the docket.
    Information gathered through this meeting will assist the FAA in
drafting a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The public will be
afforded the opportunity to comment on any NPRM published on this
matter.
    A graphic depiction of the proposed airspace modifications may be
viewed at the following URL: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/blindurls/Visual1/.

Agenda for the Meeting

--Sign-in
--Presentation of Meeting Procedures
--Informal Presentation of the Planned Airspace Modifications
--Public Presentations and Discussions
--Closing Comments

    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.

    Issued in Washington DC, on March 25, 2019.
Rodger A. Dean, Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-06183 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 539-541]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0325]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from twelve
individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would
enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal
vision requirement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0325 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday

through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The twelve individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Rene Amaya

    Mr. Amaya, age 36, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in his
left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, Rene Amaya has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Amaya reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years,
accumulating 78,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for
2[frac12] years, accumulating 102,500 miles. He holds a Class A
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from New Mexico. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Brian K. Cline

    Mr. Cline, 32, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, with his vision correction, his vision
allows him to perform commercial driving tasks.'' Mr. Cline reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 3\1/2\; years, accumulating
88,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating
18,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Robert E. Judd

    Mr. Judd, 49, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``It is my opinion that Mr. Judd has sufficient vision to perform
driving tasks in a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Judd reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 135,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Indiana. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Mickey E. Lawson

    Mr. Lawson, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``I see no visual reason that Mr. Lawson would not be able to continue
driving commercially (as he has for many years).''
    Mr. Lawson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10
years, accumulating 21 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 15 years, accumulating 577,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robbey J. Nelson

    Mr. Nelson, 42, has had keratoconus in his left eye since 2002. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``This patient has normal color vision and has sufficient vision to
operate a motor vehicle commercial or otherwise.'' Mr. Nelson reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 500,000
miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating
400,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Thomas M. Nubert

    Mr. Nubert, 55, has had reduced vision in his right eye due to a
birth defect. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
400 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``I feel that he does have sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.''
    Mr. Nubert reported that he has driven straight trucks for 26
years, accumulating 572,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for
8 years, accumulating 240,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Terri D. Payne

    Ms. Payne, 43, has had amblyopia in her left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in her right eye is 20/20 and in her left
eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2011, her optometrist noted,
``Based upon my findings and medical expertise, I, W.E. Robinson, Jr.,
hereby certify Terri D.

Payne to be visually able to safely operate a commercial motor
vehicle.'' Ms. Payne reported that she has driven straight trucks for
12 years, accumulating 57,600 miles. She holds a Class D operator's
license from Kentucky. Her driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael C. Reese

    Mr. Reese, 46, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion, you have sufficient vision to perform the
driving taks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Reese
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years,
accumulating 61,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Mark C. Reineke

    Mr. Reineke, 60, has had macular scarring in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1981. The best corrected visual acuity
his right eye is 20/25 and in his left eye is finger-count vision.
Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I
believe Mr. Reineke to have sufficient vision to operate a commercial
vehicle.''
    Mr. Reineke reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6
years, accumulating 18,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 4
years, accumulating 60,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New
Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert T. Reynolds

    Mr. Reynolds, 51, has had retinal vein occlusion in his right eye
for the past five years. The best corrected visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/400 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``Due to the fact your vision is
stable, I believe you have sufficient vision to perform you job as a
commercial vehicle operator.'' Mr. Reynolds reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 3.4 million miles and
tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years accumulating 1 million miles.
He holds a Class D operator's license from Ohio. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions in a CMV.

Lawrence D. Ventimiglia

    Mr. Ventimiglia, 46, has had reduced vision in his right eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is count-
finger vision and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in
2011, his optometrist noted, ``I certify that Larry has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Ventimiglia reported that he has driven straight trucks
for less than 3 years, accumulating about 31,200 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Nevada. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions in a CMV.

Chadwick L. Wyatt

    Mr. Wyatt, 34, has had a central corneal scar in his left eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20
and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``Patient can recognize traffic control colors and
has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Wyatt
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2\1/2\ years,
accumulating 137,500 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 2\1/2\
years, accumulating 137,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business February 6, 2012. Comments will
be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: December 22, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-33788 Filed 1-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Appendix C Changes in Treatment Plant Operation Significant Excursions Identified Using the " Maximum Concentration Approach" This page intentionally left blank. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 1 The first part of this appendix includes general system information and a summary of TTHM and HAA5 data that resulted in Elm City having to perform a significant excursion evaluation. This information as part of the documentation of a significant excursion. Only the Significant Excursion Report is required to be completed by systems that experience a significant excursion.

This appendix is provided as an example of a system in which changes in treatment plant operations led to a DBP Significant Excursion. Possible strategies to reduce excursions are presented in Chapter 4, but they are not to be included in the identification and documentation process. Appendices B, D, and E provide similar examples for systems in which changes in source water quality, changes in distribution system, and multiple causes resulted in a significant excursion.

This example assumes the state has chosen to use 100 µ g/ L TTHM and 75 µ g/ L HAA5 as the trigger levels for determining that a significant excursion has occurred and that a significant excursion evaluation is required.

Background Information for this Example System Description:

General system characteristics: Service area: Elm City plus surrounding suburban areas Production: Annual average daily demand 15 MGD Source Water Information: Hardwood Lake ( surface water) pH: from 6.9 to 7.5 Alkalinity: from 82 to 98 mg/ L as CaCO 3 TOC: from 2.1 to 4.0 mg/ L as C Bromide: from 0.04 to 0.1 mg/ L Turbidity: 1 to 100 ntu Softwood River ( surface water) pH: from 6.8 to 7.9 Alkalinity: from 77 to 94 mg/ L as CaCO 3 TOC: from 1.6 to 9.4 mg/ L as C Bromide: from 0.03 to 0.1 mg/ L Turbidity: 2 to 115 ntu Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 2 Treatment Provided: Hardwood, conventional ( 15 MGD design, 7.5 MGD average) Softwood River, conventional with GAC ( 20 MGD design, 7.5 MGD average) Primary and residual disinfection: Chlorine/ chlorine at both plants Summary of Stage 2 DBPR Monitoring Locations: Table C. 1 summarizes the Stage 2 DBPR monitoring locations used by Elm City. Sample locations are marked in the distribution system schematic presented in Figure C. 1.

Table C. 1 Stage 2 DBPR Monitoring Locations Location Description Location # 1 Hardwood Plant  average residence time Location # 2 Hardwood Plant  high TTHM Location # 3 Hardwood Plant  high HAA5 Location # 4 Hardwood/ Softwood Mix Zone  high TTHM Location # 5 Hardwood/ Softwood Mix Zone  high TTHM Location # 6 Hardwood/ Softwood Mix Zone  high TTHM Location # 7 Softwood Plant  average residence time Location # 8 Softwood Plant  high HAA5 Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 3 Pineville MIXING ZONE Softwood River WTP Hardwood WTP Elevated Storage Tank Ground storage tank Pump station 2 Oakville 1 3 Elmville 5 Downtown Appleville Weeping Willow Poplarville Cedarville Cypressville 6 7 4 8 Peak DBP location Figure C. 1 Schematic of Elm City Distribution System and Stage 2 DBPR Monitoring Locations Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 4 DBP Excursion Investigation:

During the last sampling period which took place in September 2004, Elm City experienced unusually high TTHM values ( relative to the LRAA) at five monitoring locations (# 4, # 5, # 6, # 7, # 8). Similarly, unusually high HAA5 values were detected at two monitoring locations (# 7 and # 8). DBP data from the previous year and most recent sampling period ( five quarters total) are presented in Table C. 2.

Table C. 2. TTHM and HAA5 Monitoring Data Loc atio n TTHM ( ug/ L) HAA5 ( ug/ L)

Quarterly Pre Sept. 2004 Data1 LRAA Pre Sept. 2004 Avg. Sept. 2004 Data LRAA Sept. 2004 Avg. Quarterly Pre Sept. 2004 Data1 LRAA Pre Sept. 2004 Avg. Sept. 2004 Data LRAA Sept. 2004 Avg.

# 1 54, 67, 58, 75 65 118 74 52, 37, 30, 41 40 84 48 # 2 68, 68, 55, 69 63 145 77 38, 45, 28, 19 33 75 42 # 3 66, 52, 71, 72 64 122 74 41, 46, 45, 39 43 58 47 # 4 50, 55, 51, 61 55 82 60 42, 43, 38, 34 39 54 42 # 5 34, 48, 55, 50 44 68 48 32, 43, 55, 38 42 37 43 # 6 44, 62, 58, 60 49 70 53 45, 33, 41, 40 40 53 42 # 7 40, 41, 37, 46 41 58 46 21, 38, 28, 19 27 29 29 # 8 49, 39, 50, 76 52 78 56 43, 39, 41, 45 42 49 44 1Data for sampling conducted on September 2003, December 2003, March 2004 and June 2004. Data relevant to peak excursions are bold and underlined.

Unusually high TTHM samples were collected at locations # 1, # 2, and # 3, and unusually high HAA5 samples were collected at locations # 1 and # 2. The results are significantly higher than both the LRAA at those locations for the previous 12 month period and the historic TTHM and HAA5 values at those locations for the years 1999 2003 ( see Significant Excursions Evaluation Report). Significant excursion were identified when DBP levels exceeded 100 µ g/ L TTHM or 75 µ g/ L HAA5. All of the monitoring locations affected by high DBP are located in the area served by the Hardwood plant. The city staff has reason to believe that a process change occurred during treatment operations at the Hardwood plant caused this increase in DBP levels. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 5 Significant Excursion Report date: October 16th, 2004 Evaluation Report Report prepared by: Ronald Doe, P. E.

Page 1 System name: Elm City 1) When was the significant excursion sample( s) collected? What were the TTHM and HAA5 concentrations?

Location No. # 1 # 2 # 3 # ______

Location description Hardwood Plant  average residence time Hardwood Plant  high TTHM Hardwood Plant  high HAA5 Sample collection date Sept. 4th, 2004 Sept. 4th, 2004 Sept. 4th, 2004 Sample collection time 1 p. m. 3 p. m. 11 a. m.

TTHM LRAA Concentration ( ug/ L) 74 77 74 TTHM Concentration ( ug/ L) 118 145 122 HAA5 LRAA Concentration ( ug/ L) 48 42 HAA5 Concentration ( ug/ L) 84 75 Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 6 Note: Attach additional sheets if you observed more than four significant excursions during this round of sampling.

2) Where did the excursion( s) occur? Attach a schematic of your system, sketch your system in the space below, or have a schematic of your system available to review with your state at the time of your next sanitary survey. Indicate the location( s) of the significant excursion( s) on your schematic.

Location # 1 B Represents average residence time of water leaving the Hardwood Plant. It is located in the Oakville neighborhood. There are no storage facilities between the treatment plant and this location.

Location # 2 B Sample tap is a hose bib at a building located in Pineville in a zone of the distribution system with water age greater than average. Water in this area is from the Hardwood Plant.

Location # 3 B This location is located in the Downtown area. Water is primarily from the Hardwood Plant. A ground storage tank is near this location.

The location of these sample locations is illustrated in Figure C. 1.

Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 2 Report date: October 16th, 2004 Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 7 3) Attach ( or provide in the Supplemental Data Form) all available water quality data for the round of sampling in which the significant excursion occurred. At a minimum, include all TTHM and HAA5 results from the sampling period. You should also consider including pH, temperature, alkalinity, TOC, disinfectant residual, and any other data that you think would be useful.

a) Were there any unusual circumstances associated with this round of sampling?

Yes No X If yes, please explain.

b) Were all analytical QA/ QC measures met?

Sample preservation Yes X No Sample holding time Yes X No Other If no, please explain.

4) Attach ( or provide in the Supplemental Data Form) historical TTHM and HAA5 data for the location( s) at which the significant excursion( s) occurred. Provide at least three years of data, if available. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 8 Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 3 Report date: October 16th, 2004 5) What caused your excursion( s) to occur?

Sections A through F starting on page 4 can help you determine the possible cause( s) of your excursion. Please note there may be more than one factor which resulted in your excursion.

Section A: Source water quality change Section B: Process upset at treatment plant Section C: Planned change or maintenance activities at plant Section D: Planned distribution system operations or maintenance activities Section E: Unplanned events in distribution system 6) List steps taken or planned to reduce DBP peak levels.

Plan to calibrate standby pumps for future maintenance of coagulant process feed pumps. Considering improvements to coagulant process monitoring ( daily verification with pump catch, streaming current monitoring). Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 9 Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 4 Report date: October 16th, 2004 A. Source Water Quality Changes ° Did any of the events listed below take place before the DBP excursion to cause TOC levels to increase?   Heavy rain fall   Flooding   Spring snow melt/ runoff   Significant decrease in rainfall or source flow   Algae bloom ° Did any of the events listed below take place before the DBP excursion to cause bromide levels to increase?   Significant decrease in rainfall or source flow   Brackish or seawater intrusion ° Did pH and/ or alkalinity significantly change?

° If two or more supplies are used, was a greater portion of water drawn from the one with higher TOC?

° Was raw water stored for an unusually long period of time resulting in a significant increase in water temperature?

Conclusions:

Did source water quality changes cause or contribute to your significant excursion( s)?

Yes No X If yes, please explain:

Attach all supporting operational or other data which led you to conclude this was the cause of your excursion( s) or make sure this data is available during your sanitary survey. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 10 Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 5 Report date: October 16th, 2004 B. Process Upset at Treatment Plant ° Was raw water stored for an unusually long time, providing additional contact time for DBP formation after prechlorination?

° Were there changes in coagulation practices?

S Were there any changes or malfunctions of the coagulation process in the days leading to the excursion?

S Were the coagulant dose and pH properly adjusted for incoming source water conditions?

° Were there changes in chlorination practices?   Were there any changes in chlorine dose at any location in the plant?   Were there changes in plant flow that may have resulted in longer than normal residence time at any location in the plant?

S Did the pH change at the point of chlorine addition?

° Were there changes in settling practices?

S Was there excess sludge build up in the settling basin that may have carried over to the point of disinfectant addition?

S Was there any disruption in the sludge blanket that may have resulted in carryover to the point of disinfection?

° Were there changes in filtration practices?

S Have filter run times been changed to meet raw water quality changes?

S Were there any spikes in individual filter effluent turbidity ( which may indicate particulate or colloidal TOC breakthrough) in the days leading to the excursion?

S Did chlorinated water sit in the filter for an extended period of time?

S Were all filters run in a filter to waste mode during initial filter ripening?

S Were any filters operated beyond their normal filter run time?

S If GAC filters are used: Is it possible the adsorptive capacity of the GAC bed was reached before reactivation occurred?

S If biological filtration is used: Were there any process upsets that may have resulted in breakthrough of TOC ( particularly biodegradable TOC)?

° Were there changes in plant flow that may have resulted in an unusually high residence time in the clearwell on the days prior to the excursion?

S For example, a temporary plant shutdown.

Continued on next page Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 11 Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 6 Report date: October 16th, 2004 B. Process Upset at Treatment Plant ( Continued)

Conclusions:

Did a process upset in the treatment plant cause or contribute to your significant excursion( s)?

Yes X No If yes, please explain:

The combination of two process changes at the Hardwood Plant is the most probable cause of the DBP excursion noted during the September 2004 sampling event. Specifically the two events were:

° Pre oxidation of raw water with chlorine for taste and odor control following an algae bloom in Hardwood Lake. Chlorine addition to the raw water is not a routine practice.

° Ferric chloride was underfed for two days around the September 2004 sampling resulting in a decrease in TOC removal at the Hardwood Plant. The increased TOC concentration passing through the treatment process has probably lead to increased formation of TTHM and HAA5. The low ferric dose was the result of poor calibration of the standby pumps that were placed in service during the maintenance of the feed pumps that are normally used. It was noticed that pH of coagulation increased from the usual 5.5 to 6.2 range to 7.1 to 7.3.

Attach all supporting operational or other data which led you to conclude this was the cause of your excursion( s) or make sure this data is available during your sanitary survey. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 12 Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 7 Report date: October 16th, 2004 C. Planned Change or Maintenance Activities for the Treatment Plant ° Was there a recent change ( or addition) of pre oxidant?

° Was there any maintenance in the basin that may have stirred sludge from the bottom of the basin and caused it to carry over to the point of disinfectant addition?

° Did you change the type or manufacturer of the coagulant?

° Were there any changes in disinfection practices in the days prior to the excursion?

S For example, a switch from chloramines to free chlorine for burnout period.

S Discontinuation of ozone which forms very little TTHM.

° Was a filter( s) taken off line for an extended period of time that caused the other filters to operate near maximum design capacity and creating the conditions for possible breakthrough?

° Were any pumps shut down for maintenance, leading to changes in flow patterns or hydraulic surges?

Conclusions:

Did a planned maintenance or operational activity in the treatment plant cause or contribute to your significant excursion( s)?

Yes No X If yes, please explain:

Attach all supporting operational or other data which led you to conclude this was the cause of your excursion( s) or make sure this data is available during your sanitary survey. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 13 Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 8 Report date: October 16th, 2004 D. Planned Distribution System Operations or Maintenance Activities ° Was a tank drained for cleaning or other maintenance?

S Was the tank drained to waste or to the distribution system?

S Was a larger volume than normal drained to the distribution system?

° If booster disinfection is used, was the booster disinfectant dose higher than the normal booster disinfectant dose for that season?

° Were there any system maintenance activities in the days prior to DBP excursion? Including:   Repairing mains or installing new mains   Closure of valves to isolate sections of pipes ° Were the pipes flushed properly or were the appropriate valves re opened after work was completed?

° Did any pump or pipeline maintenance occur that would have changed the flow pattern in the area the sample was drawn from?

S Change in flow can cause water in stagnant areas to be drawn into another area.

° Did any pipeline replacement occur?

S Disinfecting piping in contact with drinking water could result in a high concentration of chlorine entering the distribution system and thus increase DBPs.

Conclusions:

Did a planned distribution system maintenance or operational activity cause or contribute to your significant excursion( s)?

Yes No X If yes, please explain:

Attach all supporting operational or other data which led you to conclude this was the cause of your excursion( s) or make sure this data is available during your sanitary survey. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 14 Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 9 Report date: October 16th, 2004 E. Unplanned Distribution System Events ° Were there increases in demand that caused older water in storage tanks to be drawn into the system?

S Were there any major fire events?

S Did one or more storage tank have greater than average drawdown preceding the time of DBP peak excursion?

° Were there decreases in demand that resulted in longer than normal system residence times?

S Were there any large customers off line?

° Did any main breaks occur causing changes in flow patterns in the influence area of the sample location?

° If you collect water temperature inside storage tanks, was the temperature inside the tank higher than normal for the season?

° Were any storage tanks hydraulically locked out of the system for an extended period and then used preceding the time of DBP peak excursion?

° Did changes in overall water demand cause a change in water demand patterns in the vicinity of dead ends and/ or stagnant zones in the system?

° Were there large variations in localized system pressures that were different from the normal pressure range that could have caused a change in water demand patterns in the vicinity of dead ends and/ or stagnant zones in the system?

Conclusions:

Did an unplanned distribution system maintenance or operational activity cause or contribute to your significant excursion( s)?

Yes No X If yes, please explain:

Attach all supporting operational or other data which led you to conclude this was the cause of your excursion( s) or make sure this data is available during your sanitary survey. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 15 Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Page 10 Report date: October 16th, 2004 F. If you were unable to identify the cause of your significant excursion( s) after reviewing Sections A through E, are you able to identify another potential cause of your increase in DBP concentrations? Explain.

Note: If you are unable to determine the cause of your excursion you may wish to consider:

° More frequent raw water temperature monitoring. ° More frequent raw water TOC monitoring. ° Increased disinfectant residual monitoring in the distribution system. ° Tracer studies to characterize distribution system water age. ° Development of a hydraulic model to characterize the distribution system.

Attach all supporting operational or other data which led you to conclude this was the cause of your excursion( s) or make sure this data is available during your sanitary survey. Significant Excursion Guidance Manual Proposal Draft July 2003 C 16 Supplemental Data Form for the Significant Excursion Evaluation Report Report date: October 16th, 2004 Report prepared by: Ronald Doe, P. E.

System name: Elm City 1) Water quality data from significant excursion sampling period.

Location No. # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 Location Name TTHM ( ug/ L) 118 145 122 82 68 70 58 78 HAA5 ( ug/ L) 84 75 65 58 47 53 30 50 Free Chlorine ( mg/ L) 0.6 0.8 0.2 NA NA 1.1 NA 0.8 Total Chlorine ( mg/ L) 0.8 1.2 0.4 NA NA 1.8 NA 1.2 pH 8.2 8.5 7.9 8.1 7.8 8.3 7.5 8.2 2) Supplemental data from each treatment facility:

Plant # 1: Hardwood Plant Plant # 2: Softwood Plant Raw Water Temperature: NA Raw Water Temperature: NA Plant Effluent Water Temperature: 20

C Plant Effluent Water Temperature: 20

C Raw Water TOC: 2.2 mg/ L ( Avg.  2.0mg/ L) Raw Water TOC: 1.8 mg/ L ( Avg.  2.0mg/ L) Other Data: Other Data: Inf. turb. 25 ntu ( Avg.  20 ntu)

3) Historical TTHM and HAA5 data at significant excursion sampling locations.

TTHM Data ( ug/ L) HAA5 Data ( ug/ L)

Monitoring # 1 # 2 # 3 # Monitoring # 1 # 2 # # Location Location Date  1999 61 78 45 Date  1999 32 56 Date  2000 55 59 56 Date  2000 29 47 Date  2001 70 69 41 Date  2001 48 23 Date  2002 64 81 73 Date  2002 36 34 Date  2003 66 54 53 Date  2003 41 45 Avg. 99 03 63 68 54 Avg. 99 03 37 45 Attach additional sheets if necessary


[Federal Register: December 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 77105]
[DOCID:fr18de08-140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0184; Notice 1]

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), has determined that
certain passenger car tires manufactured from June 2, 2008 through July
10, 2008 did not fully comply with paragraphs S5.5(e) and S5.5(f) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 139 New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Goodyear has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Goodyear has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Goodyear's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 112 size P265/60R18 109S Dunlop Rover AT
passenger car tires manufactured from June 2, 2008 through July 10,
2008.
    Paragraphs S5.5(e) and S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 require in
pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches * *
*
    (e) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies
(both sidewall and tread area) of the tire;
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different * * *

    Goodyear explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold
labeling error, the sidewall marking incorrectly describes the plies in
the tread area of the tires.
    Specifically, the tires in question were inadvertently manufactured
with ``Tread 2 Polyester + 2 Steel + 1 Nylon'' marked on the sidewall.
The labeling should have been ``Tread 2 Polyester + 2 Steel.''
    Goodyear makes the argument that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the noncompliant
sidewall marking does not affect the safety of the tire and that the
tires were built as designed and all other sidewall identification
markings and safety information is correct.
    Goodyear points out that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for
sidewall marking noncompliances that it believes are similar to the
instant noncompliance.
    Goodyear also stated that it has corrected the problem that caused
these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
    In summation, Goodyear states that it believes that because the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no
corrective action is warranted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to vehicles and equipment that have already passed from the
manufacturer to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our 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.). DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).
    You may view documents submitted to a docket at the address and
times given above. You may also view the documents on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets available at that Web site.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: January 20, 2009.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: December 10, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
 [FR Doc. E8-30018 Filed 12-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72473]
[DOCID:fr28no08-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER05-644-010]

PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC; Notice of Filing

 November 21, 2008.
    Take notice that on October 1, 2007, PSEG Energy Resources & Trade
LLC filed an informational filing of a memorandum of accounts of annual
increases to FERC Account No. 108, Accumulated Provision for
Depreciation of Electric Utility Plant using imputed depreciation rates
as set forth in Appendix B of the September 23, 2005, Stipulation and
Agreement, Article II, and accepted by the Commission's Order issued
November 28, 2005, PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC et al., 113 FERC
61,213 (2005).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 5, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28288 Filed 11-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66630-66632]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1317; Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-19]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Multiple Missouri Towns

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at
Hannibal, MO; Monroe City, MO; and Monticello, MO. The FAA is proposing
this action as the result of airspace reviews conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Quincy very high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional
range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimal Operational Network (MON)
Program. The name of CPT Ben Smith Airfield-Monroe City Airport, Monroe
City, MO, would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-1317/Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-19 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Hannibal Regional Airport, Hannibal, MO; CPT Ben
Smith Airfield-Monroe City Airport, Monroe City, MO; and Lewis County
Regional Airport, Monticello, MO, to support instrument flight rule
operations at these airports.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-1317/
Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-19.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ``ADDRESSES'' section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective
September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
    Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 6.5-mile) radius of
Hannibal Regional Airport, Hannibal, MO;
    Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at CPT Ben Smith Airfield-Monroe City Airport, Monroe City,
MO, by removing the Quincy VORTAC and associated extension from the
airspace legal description; and updating the name of the airport
(previously Monroe City Regional Airport) to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Lewis County Regional Airport, Monticello, MO, by
removing the Quincy VORTAC from the airspace legal description.
    This action is due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the QUINCY VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the
VOR MON Program.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Hannibal, MO [Amended]

Hannibal Regional Airport, MO
    (Lat. 39[deg]43'31'' N, long. 91[deg]26'38'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Hannibal Regional Airport.
* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Monroe City, MO [Amended]

CPT Ben Smith Airfield-Monroe City Airport, MO
    (Lat. 39[deg]38'04'' N, long. 91[deg]43'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of CPT Ben Smith Airfield-Monroe City
Airport.

ACE MO E5 Monticello, MO [Amended]

Lewis County Regional Airport, MO
    (Lat. 40[deg]07'45'' N, long. 91[deg]40'42'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Lewis County Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 25, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-23531 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P