In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is an economically
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, (3) is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) would
not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (6) would impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold
identified above. These analyses are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ICAO references: PANS-ATM, Doc 4444, Amendment 4 (24/11/
05), Procedures for Air Navigation Services--Air Traffic Management;
Doc 9694, ICAO Manual of Air Traffic Services Data Link
Applications; Annex 2, Rules of the Air; Annex 4, Aeronautical
Charts; Annex 6 Part II, Operation of Aircraft; Annex 11, Air
Traffic Services; Annex 15, Aeronautical Information Services; Doc
9689, Manual for determination of separation minima; Circular 311,
SASP Circular--ADS-B Comparative Assessment; Circular 278, National
Plan for CNS/ATM Systems Guidance Material; Annex 10 Vol. IV,
Amendment 77, Aeronautical Telecommunications; Doc 9871, Technical
Provisions for Mode S Services and Extended Squitter (Approved draft
to be published in 2006); Doc 9688, ICAO Manual on Mode S Specific
Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
    While we welcome and encourage, all comments on the regulatory
evaluation, we specifically request comment in the regulatory
evaluation as follows:
     We solicit comments from manufacturers of large category
turbojet, regional turboprop and general aviation aircraft on when they
intend to start delivering new aircraft to comply with the rule if
enacted. We need clarification of the avionics currently installed on
new production airplanes and expected enhancements that would occur
without the rule. Lastly, we solicit comment regarding the remaining
assumptions.
     We assumed the weight for an ADS-B Out transponder, on a
GA aircraft, would be about the same as weight as existing transponders
and therefore the change would be negligible and there would be no
additional weight or fuel burn costs. We request comments from industry
on this assumption.
     We request comments from industry on the estimated costs,
maintenance intervals MTBF replacement, and MTTR requirements for the
ADS-B Out transponder and position source units.
     The FAA solicits comments on the benefits that we have
identified and estimated and whether there are any potential benefits
of ADS-B that we have not identified.
     We solicit comments from the industry on what they expect
avionics costs of equipping with ADS-B In to be as well as whether the
industry will voluntarily equip and the benefits of ADS-B In equipage.
     We request comments from the aviation industry about FAA
surveillance deployment strategies that could permit acceleration of
realized benefits.
     The FAA seeks comment, with supportive justification, to
determine the degree of hardship the proposed rule will have on these
small entities.
     Overall, in terms of competition, this rulemaking reduces
small operators ability to compete. We request comments from industry
on the results of the competitive analysis.
     The FAA assumed that maintenance and replacement costs for
ADS-B Out for GA aircraft equals zero because the maintenance and
replacement times would occur beyond 2035. The FAA seeks comment on
this assumption.
Total Benefits and Costs of this Rule
    The demand for air travel is growing in the U.S. and around the
world. The FAA's forecasts project a doubling in U.S. airline passenger
traffic by 2025. The forecasts also show strong growth for general
aviation, especially with the advent of very light jets.
    The solution to managing the anticipated growth in the use of the
NAS is the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, which
will assure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods as
demand increases. NextGen will use technology to allow precise
navigation, permit accurate real-time communication, and vastly improve
situational awareness.
    ADS-B is the chosen new technology for surveillance in the NextGen
system. It is a key component in achieving many of the goals set forth
in the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Integrated
Plan.
    We review the following three alternatives for surveillance in this
analysis:
    1. Baseline radar--maintain the current radar based surveillance
system and replace radar facilities when they wear out;
    2. ADS-B--Aircraft operators equip to meet performance requirements
proposed by the rule and the FAA provides surveillance services based
on downlinked aircraft information.
    3. Multilateration--The FAA would provide surveillance using
multilateration.
    The proposed rule requires aircraft to equip only with ADS-B Out
when flying in certain airspace. Operators may choose to more fully
equip with ADS-B In and Out, and so we also address these costs and
benefits.
    The estimated cost of this proposed rule ranges from a low of $2.3
billion ($1.6 billion at 7% present value) to a high of $8.5 billion
dollars ($4.5 billion at 7% present value).\31\ These costs include
costs to the government, as well as to the aviation industry and other
users of the airspace, to deploy ADS-B and are incremental to
maintaining surveillance via current technology (radar). The aviation
industry would begin incurring costs for avionics equipage in 2012 and
would incur total costs ranging from $1.27 billion ($670 million at 7%
present value) \32\ to $7.46 billion ($3.6 billion at 7% present value)
\33\ with an estimated midpoint of

$4.32 billion ($2.12 billion at 7% present value) \34\ from 2012 to
2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Costs at 3% present value range from $1.9 billion to $6.3
billion.
    \32\ $950 million at 3% present value.
    \33\ $5.35 billion at 3% present value.
    \34\ $3.13 billion at 3% present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated quantified potential benefits of the proposed rule
are about $10 billion ($2.7 billion at 7% present value) \35\ and
primarily result from fuel, operating cost and time savings from more
efficient flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ $5.48 billion at 3% present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would make it more likely that aircraft operators
would equip with ADS-B In equipment, which could result in estimated
additional benefits of $3.9 billion ($1.0 billion at 7% present
value).\36\ The additional cost of the ADS-B In ground segment is
estimated at $533 million ($283 million at 7% present value).\37\ We
did not estimate the cost for aircraft operators to equip with ADS-B In
because we concluded the requirements for ADS-B In are insufficient in
detail and do not yet support the development of a cost estimate. The
FAA will continue to study ADS-B In technology and intends to provide
an adoption cost estimate for the final rule. Benefits of both ADS-B In
and Out have been estimated at $13.8 billion ($3.7 billion at 7%
present value).\38\ Estimated costs of ADS-B In and Out (excluding ADS-
B In avionics costs), relative to the radar baseline, range from $2.8
billion ($1.8 at 7% present value) \39\ to $9.0 billion ($4.8 at 7%
present value).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ $2.1 billion at 3% present value.
    \37\ $392 million when discounted by 3%.
    \38\ $7.6 billion at 3% present value.
    \39\ $2.3 billion at 3% present value.
    \40\ $6.7 billion at 3% present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we do not have estimates of ADS-B In avionics costs, we can
derive an upper bound for what that cost cannot exceed if the ADS-B In
and Out scenario is to be cost beneficial relative to radar for each of
the two possibilities described below.
    Given that we have a range of costs (low to high) we considered two
possibilities: (1) Low cost, and (2) high cost:
     We concluded that ADS-B In and Out would be cost
beneficial at a present value of 7% if the costs for the ADS-B Out
avionics are low ($670 million at 7% present value) and the avionics
costs for ADS-B In do not exceed $1.85 billion at 7% present value.
     We also concluded that ADS-B In and Out would be cost
beneficial at a 3% present value if the costs for the ADS-B Out
avionics are low ($950 million at 3% present value) and the ADS-B In
avionics costs do not exceed $5.3 billion at 3% present value or if the
costs for the ADS-B Out avionics are high ($5.35 billion at 3% present
value) and the ADS-B In avionics costs do not exceed $870 million.
    ADS-B is a critical component of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System Plan (NextGen) that is being developed to
transform today's radar-based aviation system to handle increased
aviation demand. By itself, ADS-B presents significant benefits, but as
a component of the NextGen system the benefits will substantially
increase. The Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.

Reduced Carbon Dioxide Emissions

    Besides the cost savings made possible by this proposed rulemaking,
there will also be potential environmental benefits. ADS-B is an
enabling technology critical to the concept of operations for the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) plan. Under the NextGen
operational concept there will be less fuel used on many flights
because of fewer potential conflicts needing resolution, more efficient
en route conflict resolution aircraft maneuvers, and more efficient
taxi and ground idle operations. Additionally, having more precise
knowledge of the position of an aircraft with ADS-B may assist the
implementation of such environmentally friendly flight procedures like
continuous descent arrivals (CDA) to be employed in higher density
traffic times.
    The FAA estimates that between 2017 and 2035 ADS-B technology would
allow more efficient handling of potential en route conflicts, which
will result in a total of 410 million gallons of fuel savings in the
national airspace system over that time period. This decrease in fuel
use would result in about 4 million metric tons less carbon dioxide
emissions.\41\ The increased use of continuous descent approaches that
ADS-B would allow would lead to about 10 billion pounds of total fuel
savings from 2017 through 2035. This would result in about 14 million
tons less carbon dioxide emissions. Additionally, the FAA has estimated
a decline in fuel use on airline flights over the Gulf of Mexico due to
optimal routing because of this proposed rulemaking. This savings in
fuel use would result in an additional cumulative decrease of 300,000
metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the 2012 to 2035 time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ For more information on the methodology used to calculate
this estimate, see ``ADS-B Benefits Enabled from Improved en Route
Conflict Probe Performance'' in the docket established for this
rulemaking. The specific data in this regulatory evaluation however,
is more conservation than the data in the report just mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reduced fuel consumption will also translate into fewer emissions
such as oxides of nitrogen, which potentially impact, both local air
quality and climate (as a greenhouse gas emission), as well as
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide-both of which impact local air
quality. Reduction in local air quality impacts associated with
increasing capacity is vital in maintaining compliance with national
ambient air quality standards.
    The FAA solicits comments on the benefits that we have identified
and estimated and whether there are any potential benefits of ADS-B
that we have not identified.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination ADS-B

Introduction and Purpose of This Analysis
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.
    The FAA believes that this proposal would result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose
of this analysis is

to provide the reasoning underlying the FAA determination.
    Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the analysis must address:
     Description of reasons the agency is considering the
action,
     Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the
proposed rule,
     Description of the record keeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule,
     All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule,
     Description and an estimated number of small entities to
which the proposed rule will apply,
     Analysis of small firms' ability to afford the proposed
rule,
     Estimation of the potential for business closures,
     Conduct a competitive analysis,
     Conduct a disproportionality analysis, and
     Describe the alternatives considered.
Reasons Why the Rule Is Being Proposed
    Public Law 108-176, referred to as ``The Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act,'' was enacted December 12, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-176).
This law set forth requirements and objectives for transforming the air
transportation system to progress further into the 21st century.
Section 709 of this statute requires the Secretary of Transportation to
establish in the FAA a joint planning and development office (JPDO) to
manage work related to the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen). Among its statutorily defined responsibilities, the JPDO
coordinates the development and utilization of new technologies to
ensure that when available, they may be used to the fullest potential
in aircraft and in the air traffic control system.
    The FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security have
launched an effort to align their resources to develop and further the
NextGen. The goals of NextGen, as stated in section 709, are addressed
by this proposal and include:
    (1) Improve the level of safety, security, efficiency, quality, and
affordability of the NAS and aviation services;
    (2) take advantage of data from emerging ground-based and space-
based communications, navigation, and surveillance technologies;
    (3) be scalable to accommodate and encourage substantial growth in
domestic and international transportation and anticipating and
accommodating continuing technology upgrades and advances; and
    (4) accommodate a wide range of aircraft operations, including
airlines, air taxis, helicopters, general aviation, and unmanned aerial
vehicles.
    The JPDO was also charged to create and carry out an integrated
plan for NextGen. The NextGen Integrated Plan,\42\ transmitted to
Congress on December 12, 2004, ensures that the NextGen system meets
the air transportation safety, security, mobility, efficiency and
capacity needs beyond those currently included in the FAA's Operational
Evolution Plan (OEP). As described in the NextGen Integrated Plan, the
current approach to air transportation, i.e., ground based radars
tracking congested flyways and passing information among the control
centers for the duration of the flights, is becoming operationally
obsolete. The current system is increasingly inefficient and large
increases in air traffic will only result in mounting delays or
limitations in service for many areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ A copy of the Plan has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This growth will result in more air traffic than the present system
can handle. The current method of handling traffic flow will not be
able to adapt to the highest volume and density of it in the future. It
is not only the number of flights but also the nature of the new growth
that is problematic, as the future of aviation will be much more
diverse than it is today. For example, a shift of 2 percent of today's
commercial passengers to micro-jets that seat 4-6 passengers would
result in triple the number of flights in order to carry the same
number of passengers. Furthermore, the challenges grow as other non-
conventional aircraft, such as unmanned aircraft, are developed for
special operations, e.g. forest fire fighting.
    The FAA believes that ADS-B technology is a key component in
achieving many of the goals set forth in the plan. This proposed rule
embraces a new approach to surveillance that can lead to greater and
more efficient utilization of airspace. The NextGen Integrated Plan
articulates several large transformation strategies in its roadmap to
successfully creating the Next Generation System. This proposal is a
major step toward strategically ``establishing an agile air traffic
system that accommodates future requirements and readily responds to
shifts in demand from all users.'' ADS-B technology would assist in the
transition to a system with less dependence on ground infrastructure
and facilities, and provide for more efficient use of airspace.
Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives
    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, Sovereignty and use of
airspace, and Subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under
section 40103, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations on the
flight of aircraft, including regulations on safe altitudes,
navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft, and the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace. Under section 44701, the FAA
is charged 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 proposal is within the scope of sections 40103 and 44701 since
it proposes aircraft performance requirements that would meet advanced
surveillance needs to accommodate the projected increase in operations
within the National Airspace System (NAS). As more aircraft operate
within the U.S. airspace, improved surveillance performance is
necessary to continue to balance the growth in air transportation with
the agency's mandate for a safe and efficient air transportation
system.
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Requirements
    We expect no more than minimal new reporting and recordkeeping
compliance requirements to result from this proposed rule. Costs for
the initial installation of new equipment and associated labor
constitute a burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act and are accounted
for in this document.
Overlapping, Duplicative, or Conflicting Federal Rules
    We are unaware that the proposed rule will overlap, duplicate or
conflict with existing Federal Rules.
Estimated Number of Small Firms Potentially Impacted
    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed rule
significantly affects a substantial

number of small entities. This determination is typically based on
small entity size and cost thresholds that vary depending on the
affected industry. Using the size standards from the Small Business
Administration for Air Transportation and Aircraft Manufacturing, we
defined companies as small entities if they have fewer than 1,500
employees.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 13 CFR part 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define Small
Business Concerns, Sector 48-49 Transportation, Subsector 481 Air
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We considered the economic impact on small-business part 91, 121,
and 135 operators. Many of the General Aviation (GA) aircraft are
operating in part 91 are not for hire or flown for profit so we will
not include these operators in our small business impact analysis.
    This proposed rule would become final in 2009 and fully effective
in 2020. Although the FAA forecasts traffic and air carrier fleets to
2030, our forecasts do not have the granularity to determine if an
operator will still be in business or will still remain a small
business entity. Therefore we will use current U.S. operator's fleet
and employment in order to determine the number of operators this
proposal would affect.
    We obtained a list of part 91, 121 and 135 U.S. operators from the
FAA Flight Standards Service.\44\ Using information provided by the
U.S. Department of Transportation Form 41 filings, World Aviation
Directory and ReferenceUSA, operators that are subsidiary businesses of
larger businesses and businesses with more than 1,500 employees were
eliminated from the list of small entities. In many cases the
employment and annual revenue data was not public and we did not
include these companies in our analysis. For the remaining businesses,
we obtained company revenue and employment from the above three
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ AFS-260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology discussed above resulted in the following list of
34 U.S. part 91, 121 and 135 operators, with less than 1,500 employees,
who operate 341 airplanes. Due to the sparse amount of publicly
available data on internal company financial statistics for small
entities, it is not feasible to estimate the total population of small
entities affected by this proposed rule. These 34 U.S. small entity
operators are a representative sample to assess the cost impact of the
total population of small businesses, who operate aircraft affected by
this proposed rulemaking.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
                        Operator name                           aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air 1ST Aviation Companies of Oklahoma, Inc..................          9
Air Flight Enterprises Inc...................................          2
Air Transport International..................................         12
Aircraft Charter Services Inc................................          2
Allegiant Air................................................         26
American Check Transport Inc.................................         11
Anaconda Aviation Corp.......................................          2
Arrow Services...............................................          2
Bankair Inc..................................................         10
Caribbean Sun Airlines.......................................          6
Champion Air.................................................         16
Copper Station Holdings, LLC.................................          1
EPPS Air Service, Inc........................................         11
ERA Aviation Inc.............................................          9
Executive Airlines...........................................         38
Falcon Air Express...........................................          4
GOJET Airlines...............................................         15
Lynden Air Cargo.............................................          6
Miami Air International......................................         11
Midwest Airlines.............................................         36
North American Airlines......................................          9
Northeast Aviation, Inc......................................          1
Northern Air Cargo...........................................         10
Omni Air International.......................................         16
Pace Airlines................................................          8
Premier Jets Inc.............................................          1
Professional Aviation Services...............................          4
Royal Air Freight, Inc.......................................          3
Ryan International Airlines..................................         12
Samaritan's Purse............................................          2
Sun Country Airlines.........................................         13
USA Jet Airlines.............................................         10
World Airways................................................         17
XTRA Airways.................................................          6
                                                              ----------
    Total....................................................        341
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost and Affordability for Small Entities
    To assess the cost impact to small business part 91, 121 and 135
operators, we contacted manufacturers, industry associations, and ADS-B
equipage providers to estimate ADS-B equipage costs. We requested
estimates of airborne installation costs, by aircraft model, for the
output parameters listed in the Equipment Specifications section of the
Regulatory Evaluation.
    This proposed rule would become final in 2009 and fully effective
in 2020. Although the FAA forecast traffic and air carrier fleets to
2030, our forecasts do not have the granularity to determine if an
operator will still be in business or will still remain a small
business entity. Therefore we will use current U.S. operator's revenues
and apply the industry-provided costs in order to determine if this
proposal would have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entity operators.
    To satisfy the manufacturer's request to keep individual aircraft
pricing confidential, we calculated a low, baseline, and high range of
costs by equipment class. The baseline estimate equals the average of
the low and high industry estimates. The dollar value ranges consist of
a wide variety of avionics within each aircraft group. The aircraft
architecture within each equipment group can vary, causing different
carriage, labor and wiring requirements for the installation of ADS-B.
Volume discounting versus single line purchasing also affects the
dollar value ranges. On the low end, the dollar value may represent a
software upgrade or OEM option change. On the high end, the dollar
value may represent a new installation of upgraded transponder systems
necessary to assure accuracy, reliability and safety. We used the
estimated baseline dollar value cost by equipment class in determining
the impact to small business entities.
    We estimated each operator's total compliance cost by multiplying
the baseline dollar value cost, by equipment class, by the number of
aircraft each small business operator currently has in its fleet. We
summed these costs by equipment class and group. We then measured the
economic impact on small entities by dividing the estimated baseline
dollar value compliance cost for their fleet by the small entity's
annual revenue. Each equipment group operated by a small entity may
have to comply with different requirements in the proposed rule
depending on the state the aircraft's avionics. In the ADS-B Out
Equipage Cost Estimate section of the Regulatory Evaluation we detail
our methodology to estimate operator's total compliance cost by
equipment group.
    As shown in the following table, the ADS-B cost is estimated to be
greater than two percent of annual revenues for 12 small entity
operators and greater than one percent of annual revenues for 19 small
entity operators.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC07.008

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    Thus, from this sample population, the FAA determined that a
substantial number of small entities would be significantly affected by
the proposed rule. Every small entity who operates an aircraft in the
airspace defined by this proposal would be required to install ADS-B
out equipage and therefore would be affected by this rulemaking.
Business Closure Analysis
    For commercial operators, the ratio of present-value costs to
annual revenue shows that 7 of 34 small business air operator firms
analyzed would have rations in excess of five percent. Since many of
the other commercial small business air operator firms do not make
their annual revenue publicly available, it is difficult to assess the
financial impact of this proposed rule on their business. To fully
assess whether this proposed rule could force a small entity into
bankruptcy requires more financial information than is publicly
available.
    The FAA seeks comment, with supportive justification, to determine
the degree of hardship, and feasible alternative methods of compliance,
the proposed rule will have on these small entities.

Competitive Analysis
    The aviation industry is an extremely competitive industry with
slim profit margins. The number of operators who entered the industry
and have stopped operations because of mergers, acquisitions, or
bankruptcy litters the history of the aviation industry.
    The FAA analyzed five years of operating profits for the affected
small-entity operators listed above. We were able to determine the
operating profit for 18 of the 34 small business entities. The FAA
discovered that 33% of these 18 affected operator's average operating
profit is negative. Only four of the 18 affected operators had average
annual operating profit that exceeded $10,000,000. These results are
shown in the following table.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC07.009

    In this competitive industry, cost increases imposed by this
proposed regulation would be hard to recover by raising prices,
especially by those operators showing an average five-year negative
operating profit. Further, large operators may be able to negotiate
better pricing from outside firms for inspections and repairs, so small
operators may need to raise their prices more than large operators.
These factors make it difficult for the small operators to recover
their compliance costs by raising prices. If small operators cannot
recover all the additional costs imposed by this regulation, market
shares could shift to the large operators.
    Small operators successfully compete in the aviation industry by
providing unique services and controlling costs. To the extent the
affected small entities operate in niche markets enhances small
entity's ability to pass on costs. Currently small operators are much
more profitable than the established major scheduled carriers. This
proposed rule would offset some of the advantages of older aircraft
lower capital cost.
    Overall, in terms of competition, this rulemaking reduces small
operators ability to compete. We request comments from industry on the
results of the competitive analysis.
Disproportionality Analysis
    The disproportionately higher impact of the proposed rule on the
fleets of small operators result in disproportionately higher costs to
small operators. Due to the potential of fleet discounts, large
operators may be able to negotiate better pricing from outside sources
for inspections, installation, and ADS-B hardware purchases. Based on
the percent of potentially affected current airplanes over the analysis
period, small U.S. business operators may bear a disproportionate
impact from the proposed rule.
    Comments received and final rule changes on regulatory flexibility
issues will be addressed in the statement of considerations for the
final rule.
Analysis of Alternatives
Alternative One
    The status quo alternative has compliance costs to continue the
operation and commissioning of radar sites. The FAA rejected this
status quo alternative because the ground based radars tracking
congested flyways and passing information among the control centers for
the duration of the flights is becoming operationally obsolete. The
current system is not efficient enough to accommodate the estimated
increases in air traffic, which would result in mounting delays or
limitations in service for many areas.
Alternative Two
    This alternative would employ a technology called multilateration.
Multilateration is a separate type of secondary surveillance system
that is not radar and has limited deployment in the U.S. At a minimum,
multilateration requires upwards of four ground stations to deliver the
same volume of coverage and integrity of information as ADS-B, due to
the need to ``triangulate'' the aircraft's position. Multilateration is
a process wherein an aircraft position is determined using the
difference in time of arrival of a signal from an aircraft at a series
of receivers on the ground. Multilateration meets the need for accurate
surveillance and is less costly than ADS-B (but more costly than
radar), but cannot achieve the same level of benefits that ADS-B can.
Multilateration would provide the same benefits as radar, but at a
higher cost.
Alternative Three
    This alternative would provide relief by having the FAA provide an
exemption to small air carriers from all requirements of this rule.
This alternative would mean that the small air carriers would rely on
the status quo ground based radars tracking their flights and passing
information among the control centers for the duration of the flights.
This alternative would require compliance costs to continue for

the commissioning of radar sites. Air traffic controller workload and
training costs would increase having to employ two systems in tracking
aircraft. Small entities may request ATC deviations prior to operating
in the airspace affected by this proposal. It would also be contrary to
our policy for one level of safety in part 121 operations to exclude
certain operators simply because they are small entities. Thus, this
alternative is not considered to be acceptable.
Alternative Four
    This alternative is the proposed ADS-B rule. ADS-B does not employ
different classes of receiving equipment or provide different
information based on its location. Therefore, controllers will not have
to account for transitions between surveillance solutions as an
aircraft moves closer or farther away from an airport. In order to meet
future demand for air travel without significant delays or denial of
service, ADS-B was found to be the most cost effective solution to
maintain a viable air transportation system. ADS-B provides a wider
range of services to aircraft users and could enable applications
unavailable to multilateration or radar.
Trade Impact Assessment
    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    ICAO is developing a set of standards that are influenced by, and
similar to, the U.S. RTCA developed standards. Initial discussions with
the international community lead us to conclude that U.S. aircraft
operating in foreign airspace would not have to add any equipment or
incur any costs in addition to what they would incur to operate in
domestic airspace under this proposed rulemaking. Foreign operators may
incur additional costs to operate in U.S. airspace, if their national
rules, standards and, current level of equipage are different than
those required by this proposed rule. The FAA is actively engaged with
the international community to ensure that the international and US.
ADS-B standards are as compatible as possible. For a fuller discussion
of what other countries are planning with regard to ADS-B, see Section
VII of this preamble. By 2020 ICAO standards may change to harmonize
with this proposed rule and foreign operators will not have to incur
additional costs.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule is not
expected to impose significant costs on small governmental
jurisdictions such as state, local, or tribal governments, but the FAA
calls for comment on whether this expectation is correct. However, this
proposed rule would result in an unfunded mandate because it would
result in expenditures in excess of an inflation-adjusted value of
$128.1 million. We have considered three alternatives to this
rulemaking, which are discussed in section 4.0 and in the regulatory
flexibility analysis in section 7.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

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

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

    2. Amend Sec.  91.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the
waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United
States must comply with Sec. Sec.  91.1 through 91.21; Sec. Sec.
91.101 through 91.143; Sec. Sec.  91.151 through 91.159; Sec. Sec.
91.167 through 91.193; Sec.  91.203; Sec.  91.205; Sec. Sec.  91.209
through 91.217; Sec.  91.221, Sec.  91.225; Sec. Sec.  91.303 through
91.319; Sec. Sec.  91.323 through 91.327; Sec.  91.605; Sec.  91.609;
Sec. Sec.  91.703 through 91.715; and Sec.  91.903.
* * * * *
    3. Revise Sec.  91.217 to read as follows:

Sec.  91.217  Data correspondence between automatically reported
pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference.

    (a) No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting
equipment associated with a radar beacon transponder--
    (1) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC;
    (2) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated
to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95
percent probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the
altimeter

normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter
referenced to 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to
the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft; or
    (3) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the
standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively.
    (b) After January 1, 2020, no person may operate any automatic
pressure altitude reporting equipment associated with a radar beacon
transponder or with ADS-B Out equipment unless the pressure altitude
reported for ADS-B Out and Mode C/S is derived from the same source for
aircraft equipped with both a transponder and ADS-B Out.
    4. Add Sec.  91.225 to read as follows:

Sec.  91.225  Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
equipment and use.

    (a) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC,
no person may operate an aircraft below Flight Level 240 (FL240) and in
airspace described in paragraph (b) of this section unless the aircraft
is equipped with ADS-B Out equipment that:
    (1) Meets the performance requirements in TSO-C166a (1090ES), or
later version; or
    (2) Meets TSO-C154b (UAT), or later version; and
    (3) Meets the requirements in part 91, Appendix H;
    (b) Airspace:
    (1) Class A airspace below FL240;
    (2) Class B and Class C airspace areas;
    (3) All aircraft in all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an
airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part from the surface
upward to 10,000 feet MSL;
    (4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the
lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for
an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL.
    (c) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC,
no person may operate an aircraft at or above FL240 unless the aircraft
is equipped with ADS-B Out equipment that:
    (1) Meets the performance requirements in TSO-C166a or later
version; and
    (2) Meets the requirements of part 91, Appendix H.
    (d) The requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, as
appropriate, apply to:
    (1) All aircraft in Class E airspace over the Gulf of Mexico from
the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles at and
above 3,000 feet MSL;
    (2) All aircraft, except for any aircraft that was not originally
certificated with an electrical system, or which has not subsequently
been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and
gliders, in Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the
District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL.
    (e) The requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this
section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally
certificated with an electrical system, or which has not subsequently
been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and
gliders, which may conduct operations without ADS-B Out in airspace
within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1
of this part provided such operations are conducted:
    (1) Outside any Class B or Class C airspace area; and
    (2) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C
airspace area designated for an airport, or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever
is lower.
    (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must
operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times except as
otherwise directed by ATC.
    (g) Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC
facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the
time periods specified as follows:
    (1) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative ADS-B Out, to
the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops,
or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both,
the request may be made at any time.
    (2) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with ADS-B
Out, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed
operation.
    5. Amend appendix D to part 91 by revising section 1 introductory
text to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 91--Airports/Locations: Special Operating
Restrictions

    Section 1. Locations at which the requirements of Sec.
91.215(b)(2) and Sec.  91.225(b)(3) apply. The requirements of Sec.
91.215(b)(2) and Sec.  91.225(b)(3) apply below 10,000 feet above
the surface within a 30-nautical-mile radius of each location in the
following list:
* * * * *
    6. Add appendix H to part 91 to read as follows;

Appendix H--Performance Requirements for Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (Ads-B) Out

Section 1. Terms of Reference

    ADS-B Out is a function of an aircraft's onboard avionics that
periodically broadcasts the aircraft's state vector (3-dimensional
position and 3-dimensional velocity) and other required information
as described in this appendix.
    ADS-B Out operating requirements are defined in 14 CFR 91.225.
    Navigation Accuracy Category for Position (NACp) specifies the
accuracy of reported aircraft's position as defined in TSO-C166a and
TSO-C154b.
    Navigation Accuracy Category for Velocity (NACv) specifies the
accuracy of reported aircraft's velocity as defined in TSO-C166a and
TSO-C154b.
    Navigation Integrity Category (NIC) specifies an integrity
containment region around the aircraft's reported position, as
defined in TSO-C166a and TSO-C154b.
    Navigation Position Sensor is the equipment installed onboard an
aircraft used to process and transmit aircraft position (e.g.
location, latitude and longitude, state vector) information.
    Surveillance Integrity Level (SIL) indicates the potential risk
that the reported aircraft's position is outside the integrity
containment region described by the NIC parameter, as defined in
TSO-C166a and TSO-C154b.

Section 2. 1090ES and UAT Broadcast Links and Power Requirements

    (a) Aircraft operating above FL240 with equipment installed that
meets the minimum performance requirements of TSO-C166a or later
version, must meet the performance requirements of Class A1, A2, A3,
or B1 equipment as defined in TSO-C166a or later version.
    (b) Aircraft operating in airspace designated for ADS-B Out and
below FL240 must have equipment installed that meets the performance
requirements of either:
    (1) Class A1, A2, A3 or B1 equipment as defined in TSO-C166a or
later version; or
    (2) Class A1H, A2, A3, or B1 equipment as defined in TSO-C154b
or later version.

Section 3. ADS-B Out Performance Requirements for NIC, NAC, and SIL

    (a) For aircraft broadcasting ADS-B Out as required under Sec.
91.225(a), (c), and (d):
    (1) The aircraft's NACp for the positioning source must be
greater than or equal to 9;
    (2) The aircraft's NACv for the positioning source must be
greater than or equal to 1;
    (3) The aircraft's NIC must be greater than or equal to 7; and
    (4) The aircraft's SIL must be 2 or 3.
    (b) Changes in the NIC, NAC, or SIL must be broadcast within 10
seconds.

Section 4. Minimum Broadcast Message Element Set for ADS-B Out

    Each aircraft must broadcast the following information, as
defined in TSO-C166a or later version, or TSO-C154b or later
version. The pilot must enter information for message elements (g)-
(k) of this section during the appropriate phase of flight:
    (a) The length and width of the aircraft;
    (b) An indication of the aircraft's lateral and longitudinal
position;
    (c) An indication of the aircraft's barometric pressure
altitude;
    (d) An indication of the aircraft's velocity;

    (e) An indication if TCAS II or ACAS is installed and operating
in a mode that can generate resolution advisory alerts;
    (f) If an operable TCAS II or ACAS is installed, an indication
if a resolution advisory is in effect;
    (g) An indication if the flight crew has selected to receive ATC
services;
    (h) An indication of the Mode 3/A transponder code specified by
ATC;
    (i) An indication of the aircraft's call sign that is submitted
on the flight plan, or the aircraft's registration number;
    (j) An indication if the flight crew has identified an emergency
and if so, the emergency status being transmitted;
    (k) An indication of the aircraft's ``IDENT'' to ATC;
    (l) An indication of the aircraft assigned ICAO 24-bit address;
    (m) An indication of the aircraft's emitter category;
    (n) An indication whether a cockpit display of traffic
information (CDTI) is installed and operable; and
    (o) An indication of the aircraft's geometric altitude.

Section 5. ADS-B Latency Requirements

    (a) Upon receipt of the information by the aircraft antenna(s),
the navigation position sensor must process the information in less
than 0.5 seconds.
    (b) The processed information from the navigation position
sensor must be transmitted in the ADS-B Out message in less than 1.0
second.
    (c) The aircraft must transmit its position and velocity at
least once per second while airborne or while moving on the airport
surface.
    (d) The aircraft must transmit its position at least once every
5 seconds while stationary on the airport surface.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2007.
Michael A. Cirillo,
Vice President, System Operations Services.
Rick Day,
Vice President, En Route and Oceanic Services.

[FR Doc. 07-4938 Filed 10-2-07; 9:08 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64906-64908]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0812]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Emerald Isle, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the timeframe for a temporary
safety zone on the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at
Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of mariners on navigable waters during maintenance of
the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The safety zone extension
will temporarily restrict vessel movement within the designated area
starting on December 12, 2012 through February 14, 2013.

DATES: This rule is effective from December 12, 2012, through February
14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-0812. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email CWO4 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    FR Federal Register
    NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On September 17, 2012 the Coast Guard published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (33 FR 57063) for
this rulemaking. We received no comments in response to the NPRM. No
public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    North Carolina Department of Transportation has contracted Marine
Contracting Corporation of Virginia Beach, Virginia to perform bridge
maintenance on the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The
contract provides for replacement of the fender system to commence on
September 12, 2012 with a completion date of December 12, 2012. The
contractor has been granted an extension by North Carolina Department
of Transportation until February 14, 2013 to complete the bridge
maintenance. The contractor will utilize

a 140 foot deck barge with a 40 foot beam as a work platform and for
equipment staging. A safety zone is needed to provide a safety buffer
for transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to
mariners and property due to reduction of horizontal clearance.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
    The temporary safety zone will encompass the waters directly under
the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina (34[deg]40'28'' N,
077[deg]03'56'' W). All vessels transiting this section of the waterway
requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet will be
required to make a one hour advanced notification to the work
supervisor at the NC 58 Fixed Bridge while the safety zone is in
effect. This initial zone (published in the Federal Register on June
15, 2012, at 77 FR 35093, under docket number USCG-2012-0432) is in
effect from 8 a.m. September 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. December 12, 2012.
This extension will be in effect from 8 p.m. December 12, 2012 through
8 p.m. February 14, 2013.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does restrict
traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway; it imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is
clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal
clearance of greater than 50 feet.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the
following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or
operators of commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and
commercial fishing vessels intending to transit the specified portion
of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 p.m. December 12, 2012 through
8 p.m. February 14, 2013.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone will apply to this section of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage
by providing a one hour advanced notification. Before the effective
period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available
to the users of the waterway.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0812 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0812  Safety Zone, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway;
Emerald Isle, NC.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a safety zone: This zone
includes the waters directly under and 100 yards either side of the NC
58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226,
at Emerald Isle, North Carolina (latitude 34[deg]40'28'' N, longitude
077[deg]03'56'' W).
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05-0812. In addition the following regulations apply:
    (1) All vessels requiring greater than 50 feet horizontal clearance
to safely transit through the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina must
contact the work supervisor on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and
16 one hour in advance of intended transit.
    (2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be
contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
    (3) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity
of this safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a
Coast Guard Ensign, and
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
    (c) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port North Carolina means the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina or any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port North Carolina to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) Work Supervisor means the contractors on site representative.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal,
State and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
December 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. February 14, 2013 unless cancelled
earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: October 4, 2012.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2012-26154 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61100-61101]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23996]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0452; FRL-8834-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; Opacity Testing of Heavy-Duty
Diesel Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
concerning particulate matter (PM) emissions from heavy-duty (HD)
diesel vehicles. We are proposing to approve state rules to regulate
these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0452 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and
submitted to the EPA.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Agency                     Rule No.                 Rule title            Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB.........................  Title 13, Division 3,     Heavy-Duty Diesel Smoke      07/01/2019      02/13/2020
                                Chapter 3.5.              Emission Testing and
                                                          Heavy-Duty Vehicle
                                                          Emission Control
                                                          System Inspections \1\.
CARB.........................  Title 13, Division 3,     Periodic Smoke               07/01/2019      02/13/2020
                                Chapter 3.6.              Inspections of Heavy-
                                                          Duty Diesel-Powered
                                                          Vehicles \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 13, 2020, the submittal from CARB was deemed by operation
of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Chapter 3.5 contains sections 2180-2189.
    \2\ Chapter 3.6 contains sections 2190-2194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of the submitted rules in the
California SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10), contribute to effects that are harmful to
human

health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation
of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function,
visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section
110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM
emissions. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more
information about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revisions, relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001.
    3. ``Guidance to States on In-Use Smoke Test Procedure for
Highway Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles,'' EPA OAR, April 3, 1997.
    4. ``Guidance to States on Smoke Opacity Cutpoints to be used
with the SAE J1667 In-Use Smoke Test Procedure,'' EPA OAR, February
25, 1999.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules meet CAA requirements and are consistent with relevant
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. The standards set
forth in the rules listed above (referred to as the ``heavy-duty
vehicle inspection program'' (HDVIP) and the ``periodic smoke
inspection program'' (PSIP)) are more stringent than the opacity
standards set forth in the EPA's guidance to states.\3\ Further, while
EPA's 1999 guidance establishes recommendations for states to uniformly
establish opacity standards, states have authority under CAA section
209(d) to establish their own in-use standards for motor vehicles. The
TSD has more information on our evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Guidance to States on Smoke Opacity Cutpoints to be used
with the SAE J1667 In-Use Smoke Test Procedure,'' EPA OAR, February
25, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSD includes recommendations for the next time CARB modifies
the rules.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until December 6, 2021. If we take final action to approve the
submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the
federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the California rules described in Table 1 of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Publ. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 29, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-23996 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51664-51665]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-760-004.
    Applicants: Kinetica Energy Express, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to Implement
Revised Tariff Records to be effective 9/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220816-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1131-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2022-08-16 REX Termination of Ultra
Service Agreements to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220816-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1132-000.
    Applicants: Calhoun Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Limited Waiver of
Capacity Release Regulations, et al. of Calhoun Power Company, LLC, et
al. under RP22-1132.
    Filed Date: 8/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220816-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1133-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Retention Rates--Winter
2022 to be effective 10/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220817-5008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18146 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72966-72967]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1980-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Missouri (FEMA-1980-DR), dated May 9, 2011, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 10, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Stephen R.
Thompson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Michael L. Karl as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-30452 Filed 11-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P