-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:49PM -----
To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
From: "Rentz, Rebecca"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: 01/28/2010 05:13PM
cc: "Holmstead, Jeff"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Wasson, Mike"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><David.O'Leary@warren-
equipment.com>
Subject: Rulemaking EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708
Melanie,

Please find attached SI Management Practice recommendations for your consideration.  These
recommendations are being submitted on behalf of Exterran, JW Power Company and CSI (EJC) but
have also received input and support from others who operate SI RICE potentially impacted by the
proposed rule.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or need additional information.

Thank you,

Rebecca

Rebecca J Rentz | Counsel | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 | Houston, Texas | 77002-2770
T:<PHONE_NUMBER> | F:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>| www.bgllp.com/rentz | www.bgllp.com


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12559-12563]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No.: FAA-2002-11301; Amendment No. 121-315A]
RIN 2120-AH14

Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for Personnel
Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities; Supplemental Regulatory
Flexibility Determination

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; supplemental regulatory flexibility determination.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the completion and availability of a
supplemental regulatory flexibility determination for a previously
published final rule. That final rule amended the FAA regulations
governing drug and alcohol testing to clarify that each person who
performs a safety-sensitive function for a regulated employer by
contract, including bysubcontract at any tier, is subject to testing.

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number 2002-11301 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Nance, Office of Aviation
Policy and Plans, APO-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3311; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this
document, contact Anne Bechdolt, Regulations Division, AGC-220, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 28, 2002, the FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking seeking to revise the drug and alcohol testing regulations
by amending the definition of employee (67 FR. 9366, 9377, Feb. 28,
2002). The FAA action addressed those individuals performing safety-
sensitive functions under contract who may not have been subject to
testing under the drug and alcohol testing regulations established in
1988 and 1994, respectively. Upon review of comments, the FAA, in 2004,
issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to seek comment
regarding how small entities would be impacted by this rule (69 FR
27980, May 17, 2004). From the comments received the FAA believed that
the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    On January 10, 2006, the FAA issued the final rule (71 FR 1666).
This rule requires that each person who performs a safety-sensitive
aviation function directly for an employer is subject to testing and
that each person who performs a safety-sensitive function at any tier
of a contract for that employer is also subject to testing. This
requirement includes contractors and subcontractors. Contracting
companies have two testing options: Option one is for the contracting
company to obtain and implement its own FAA drug and alcohol (D&A)
testing programs. Under this option, the company would subject the
individuals to testing. The other option is for the regulated employer
to maintain its own testing programs and subject the individual to
testing under these programs. To establish a D&A program a company
would need to develop and maintain testing, training, and annual
reporting requirements.
    To comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), and to
evaluate the impact on small businesses, the FAA described and
estimated the number of affected businesses and estimated the economic
impact. In the final regulatory flexibility analysis the FAA estimated
that the costs were minimal, and that contractors would absorb some of
these costs. In order to estimate the maximum impact of this regulation
on regulated entities the FAA assumed that all of the additional cost
would be passed along to regulated employers. Since costs were minimal,
the FAA again certified that the rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 71 FR 1666,
1674 (Jan. 10, 2006)
    The Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Inc., (ARSA) and other
affected businesses challenged the final rule on several grounds,
including the FAA's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
entities argued that contractors and subcontractors were directly
affected by the final rule, and in failing to consider them in the
final

regulatory flexibility analysis, the FAA failed to comply with the RFA.
Upon review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
upheld ``the substance of the 2006 final rule'' and remanded ``for the
limited purpose of conducting the analysis required under the RFA,
treating the contractors and subcontractors as regulated entities.''
The Court found that contractors and subcontractors were directly
affected by the final rule and that the FAA failed to comply with the
RFA by not considering them in the analysis. To comply with the Court's
ruling, the FAA has extended the regulatory flexibility analysis to
include contractors and subcontractors as discussed below.
    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, the RFA requires
agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the 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.

Discussion

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established small
business size standards pursuant to the Small Business Act (Act) (Pub.
L. 85-236, as amended) and related legislative guidelines. Using the
NAICS (North American Industrial Classification System)
classifications, the SBA classifies ``small'' businesses based on their
employment or annual revenue. For this rule, part 145 certificated
repair stations and their subcontractors are considered small
businesses as defined by this definition. Repair stations are
classified as ``Other Support Activities for Air Transport'' (488190)
with small businesses defined as businesses with annual revenues of $7
million or less. Subcontractors, conversely, overlap several industries
and have multiple NAICS codes. The SBA and ARSA provided a list of 21
NAICS codes for suppliers, parts fabricators and metal finishers, among
others that may perform safety sensitive repairs and therefore would be
considered a subcontractor under the rule. For these NAICS codes the
definition of a small business ranges from 500 to 1,000 employees or
annual revenues of $7 million or less.
    Based upon data compiled by the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) for an aircraft repair station security rule, in
the RFA the FAA estimated the number of small business repair stations.
TSA used revenue and employment records from Dun & Bradstreet for
approximately 2,276 domestic repair stations.\1\ From this total they
identified 2,123 that reflect small businesses as defined by the SBA.
Their analysis indicates that most repair stations are small
businesses. Accepting the TSA percentage of small entities for domestic
repair stations and our internal data, the FAA has estimated that out
of 4,105 domestic U.S. certificated repair stations 3,829 are small
businesses with revenues of $7 million or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Aircraft Repair Station Security (49 CFR part 1520 and
1554). Regulatory and Economic Analysis: Transportation Security
Administration Department of Homeland Security, October 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After estimating the number of small entity repair stations, we now
focus on describing subcontractors impacted by this rule. In order to
provide a description of subcontractors, the FAA examined the submitted
list of 21 NAICS codes provided by the SBA and ARSA. There was some
duplication in the codes, reducing the actual number of codes to be
examined.
    During the comment period ARSA not only provided a list of NAICS
codes, but they also conducted and provided information on a Non-
Certificated Maintenance Subcontractor (NCMS) Survey. Some of the
information from the survey proved to be useful in determining the
small business impact on subcontractors, particularly the responses to
questions 1 (number of employees), 2 (annual revenue), 3 (an existing
contract with a U.S. air carrier to perform maintenance), 4 (type of
work). These responses are used, in this analysis, to determine the
characteristics of these companies.
    The FAA finds it appropriate to start with the responses to
question 4, which deals with the work-related functions of the
respondents, as a snapshot of some of the types of companies that need
to be included in this analysis. The FAA grouped the responses to
question 4 into the NAICS codes that both ARSA and the SBA provided and
the FAA was able to correlate 98 of the 134 survey respondents with
these codes; these 98 are shown in Table 1 below. While there are
discrepancies with regard to the count, we can validate 98 of the 134
responses. This shows the wide spectrum of businesses providing
contracting support.

         Table 1--Survey Results--NAICS Codes and Work Functions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Require D&A
   Number of NCMS     NAICS Code    Work functions         program?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................       313311  Fireproofing of     Y
                                   fabrics.
14.................       313320  Metallizing         S
                                   (including
                                   plating).
9..................       332322  Manufacturing       N
                                   airframe parts
                                   (mostly sheet
                                   metal).
                                  Manufacturing per   N
                                   approved drawing
                                   or data.
                                  Manufacturing       N
                                   small parts; some
                                   of which are used
                                   by part 121
                                   operators.
23.................       332710  Chemical milling    S
                                   (reduction of
                                   weight).
                                  Machining.........  S
                                  Machining and       N
                                   welding of ground
                                   support parts for
                                   planes.
                                  Machining of        S
                                   turbine engine
                                   components.
                                  Machining; chrome   S
                                   plating; anodize;
                                   metal finishing;
                                   shot peening.
3..................       332722  Manufacturer of     N
                                   miniature turned
                                   parts. Screws and
                                   like.

2..................       332811  Heat treating.....  Y
1..................       332812  Painting..........  Y
8..................       332813  Chrome plating;     S
                                   nickel plating
                                   (metal finishing).
                                  Machining; chrome   S
                                   plating; anodize;
                                   metal finishing;
                                   shot peening.
                                  Metal finishing     S
                                   (grinding) (zinc
                                   plating).
                                  Plating; precision  S
                                   grinding; non-
                                   destructive
                                   testing.
3..................       332999  Die-cut parts--     N
                                   shims; washers;
                                   gaskets; etc..
1..................       334511  Rebuild electro-    N
                                   mechanical
                                   switches for
                                   aviation use.
1..................       336412  Overhauling of      Y
                                   engine blocker
                                   doors.
22.................       488190  Minor maintenance.  Y
                                  Maintenance on 135  Y
                                   charter aircraft
                                   line.
                                  Overhauling of      Y
                                   engine blocker
                                   doors.
5..................       541380  Calibration and     N
                                   repair of test
                                   and measuring
                                   equipment.
                                  Hydrostatic         N
                                   testing.
                                  Inspection........  N
                                  Machining &         N
                                   fabrication of
                                   test fixtures &
                                   equipment used in
                                   repair processes.
                                  Non-destructive     N
                                   testing.
1..................       561740  Cleaning seat       N
                                   covers.
4..................       811310  Machining and       N
                                   welding of ground
                                   support parts for
                                   planes.
                                  Manufacturing &     N
                                   precision
                                   grinding and
                                   testing of
                                   various fuel &
                                   hydraulic/
                                   pneumatic valve
                                   assemblies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 also indicates whether a specific function would require a
D&A program. The last column is either marked with ``Y'' meaning yes,
``N'' meaning no, and ``S'' meaning some in this grouping might need
such a program, as this work function conceivably could mandate such a
program. Companies that have work that is strictly manufacturing will
not be required to comply with the D&A testing rules. Several companies
mentioned in their survey responses that they do not perform
maintenance, and would not be included among companies required to set
up and implement D&A testing. For example, the 14 companies
characterized as 313320, which involves metal finishing including
plating, may need to conduct D&A testing if some of the work they
perform is considered maintenance under 14 CFR part 43.
    The responses to questions 1 and 2 address the number of employees
and the annual revenue reported by the surveyed companies. These
responses are helpful in establishing the type of impact that this
program will have on these companies. Question 1 asked ``How many
employees does your company have?'' Table 2 summarizes the responses
provided by the ARSA survey. All but two of the responses are in the
category of 750 or below. The two responses for ``1501+'' are outliers
and, for computational purposes, can be ignored. Approximately 75% of
the respondents stated that they employed between 1 and 50 employees,
indicating that the majority of subcontracting companies are small
entities.

              Table 2--Survey Results--Employees by Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Response                          Count    Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 10.............................................        43     32.09
11 to 50............................................        58     43.28
51 to 100...........................................        10      7.46
101 to 500..........................................        18     13.43
501 to 750..........................................         3      2.24
751 to 1000.........................................         0      0.00
1001 to 1500........................................         0      0.00
1501+...............................................         2      1.49
                                                     -------------------
    Total...........................................       134    100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 2 of the survey asked about the company's annual revenues;
Table 3 summarizes the survey responses:

           Table 3--Survey Results--Annual Revenue by Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Response                          Count    Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under $750,000......................................        43     32.09
$750,000 to $1 million..............................        14     10.45
$1 million to $2 million............................        20     14.93
$2 million to $6 million............................        24     17.91
$6 million to $10.5 million.........................         8      5.97
$10.5 million to $21.5 million......................         7      5.22
$21.5 million to $25 million........................         1      0.75
$25 million to $30 million..........................         4      2.99
More than $30 million...............................        13      9.70
                                                     -------------------
  Total.............................................       134    100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of these companies reported average annual revenue of $7
million or less.
    As noted above, ARSA did a survey and 134 members responded; the
FAA believes that this is only a fraction of the total number of NCMS.
As mentioned above, a small business is defined as having either 1,000
employees or less, or having revenue of $7 million or less, depending
on the NAICS code. The majority of the companies in the ARSA survey are
small entities which leads the FAA to believe that a substantial number
of subcontractors will be small entities impacted by this rule.
    The next step is to estimate the economic impact. The FAA rule
requires small businesses to administer random drug tests to those
employees who perform safety-sensitive functions. For a high cost
estimate, the FAA based costs on subcontractors initiating and then
implementing their own programs. It is important to note that these
costs are much higher than when repair stations or contractors at
higher tiers absorb some of the cost of D&A testing for the smaller
firms. Moreover, most repair stations have drug and alcohol programs
and therefore would not experience a cost burden based on the
amendments to this rule. However, to estimate the maximum impact of
this regulation on regulated employers, the FAA assumes that all of the
additional cost for D&A testing is absorbed by each NCMS. The costs
include: (1) Testing, (2) training and education, (3) program
development and maintenance, and (4) annual documentation. The
assumptions and calculations are described below:

General Cost and Salary Assumptions

Maintenance supervisor salary--$39.68/hour
Maintenance employee salary--$33.07/hour
Blended Wage \2\--$33.84
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Two of the costs described below, testing costs and employee
training costs, involve all employees, both supervisors and non-
supervisors. For these two sets of calculations, the FAA uses a
weighted wage rate from the maintenance supervisor and maintenance
employee salary that is applicable to all employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructor salary--$36.37/hour
1 Supervisor for every 8 employees
1 Instructor for every 20 employees

Testing Cost

    Drug and alcohol tests are required periodically for all employees
performing safety sensitive functions. The test costs approximately $45
or $35, respectively. The test includes specimen collection, laboratory
processing, and MRO (medical review officer) verification. Testing
takes place during an employee's shift. This is time not worked but
still paid by the company and is included as part of the testing cost.
Previously, the FAA estimated that the testing process would take 45
minutes, but because of industry comments the FAA has adopted a 2 hour
testing window for this analysis. The total cost of testing is
calculated by adding the 2 hour blended wage paid to the employee to
the cost of the test. The total cost of testing sums to $113 per
employee for a drug test and $102 per employee for an alcohol test.

Training and Education

    Training costs are a combination of supervisor and employee
training costs, plus the cost to establish and maintain a training
program. For both the antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention programs,
the employer will train supervisors to make reasonable cause/suspicion
determinations. In addition, supervisors and employees will receive
training on the effects and consequences of drug use on personal
health, safety, and work environment, as well as the manifestations and
behavioral cues that may indicate drug use and abuse. For supervisors,
this training is initially estimated to take an hour and a half,
followed by a recommended annual hourly refresher course. Employee
training will also be given annually for approximately an hour.
Training costs include the cost of the instructor at $84 per supervisor
and $70 per employee.
    Companies must also establish an education program that includes
informational material, videos, etc. Per employee, these costs average
$65 per person. Summing all of these together gives an estimated total
education and training cost of either $149 per supervisor or $135 per
employee per year.

Program Development and Maintenance

    Each subcontractor will have to devote resources to developing an
antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention testing program. In addition,
each of these subcontractors will have to spend time to produce
information required for their registration and submit it to the FAA.
At the FAA, this information will have to be processed, and entered
into the appropriate database. The FAA estimates that development and
maintenance of a drug and alcohol program would each require a minimum
of 16 administrative hours per program at $21 per hour for a total of
$336 per company per year.

Annual Documentation

    Each subcontractor has to periodically submit documentation. They
will be required to report or submit the following documents; Training
records, reasonable suspicion cases of drug and alcohol misuse, a
positive drug or alcohol test, an employee's refusal to submit to a
drug or alcohol test, post-accident alcohol tests, and, if a post-
accident alcohol test is not promptly administered, documentation
stating the reasoning behind the delay. The FAA estimates that it will
cost $1.29 to report each training record, to document each reasonable
suspicious case, or to submit every rationale behind tests not being
promptly administered. Notification of a positive drug or alcohol test
or an employee's refusal to be tested is estimated to take .25
administrative hours at an hourly rate of $21 at roughly $5 per
notification. The FAA projects that these documents will be submitted
annually, but each company on average only submits a certain number of
reports. Using this average, documentation cost is estimated at $50 per
company for the first year and $4.50 per company for subsequent years.
    We estimate that the typical subcontracting company has 25
employees. This number comes from Table 2 above, where 75% of the
respondents have fewer than 50 employees. Several of the costs are
variable costs and are dependent on the number of employees; testing
costs, supervisor training, and employee training. For testing and
training costs, the FAA multiplied the cost per employee by the average
number of employees. For a small subcontracting company with 25
employees we estimate $2,825 for drug tests, $2,550 for alcohol tests,
and $3,417 for training. Adding these numbers to per company cost of
program development and maintenance and annual documentation costs
gives the average cost per-company of $6,628 or $6,353 for drug testing
and alcohol testing, respectively. Detailed calculations are done
below. This value can be compared to annual revenues to determine the
impact on companies with 25 employees. Using the survey results from
Table 2 and 3 above, we believe that a subcontracting company with 25
employees will have annual revenues of $750,000 to $2 million. For a
company with $750,000 to $2 million in annual revenue estimated costs
of $12,981 is less than 2% of their annual revenue. From this example
we conclude that even for firms with revenues less than $750,000 per
year, if we underestimated the compliance cost by more than 10%, the
compliance cost is still less than 2% of their annual revenue. Since
most of the costs are employee driven the compliance cost will be less
than 2% of annual revenue for all companies.
    From this the FAA asserts that although there are a substantial
number of small businesses the economic impact is minimal.

Cost for Firms With 25 Employees and Annual Revenue of $750,000 to $2
Million

Cost of Drug Testing Program

$113 Testing Cost x 25 Employees = $2,825
$149 Supervisor Training x 3 Supervisors = $447
$135 Employee Training x 22 Employees = $2,970
$336 Program Development per Company
+$50 for Annual Documentation per Company

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost = $6,628 per Company

Cost of Alcohol Testing Program

$102 Testing Cost x 25 Employees = $2,550
$149 Supervisor Training x 3 Supervisors = $447
$135 Employee Training x 22 Employees = $2970
$336 Program Development per Company = $336
+$50 for Annual Documentation per Company

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost = $6,353 per Company

    The FAA is aware that a substantial number of small entities must
comply with this rule; however, the percentage of cost to revenue is
less that 1 percent, therefore we believe that this rule does

not have a significant economic impact. Therefore the FAA preliminarily
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
    The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination on this
supplemental regulatory flexibility analysis. Please provide detailed
economic analysis to support the position of higher cost. The FAA also
invites comments regarding other small entity concerns with respect to
the final rule.

Nan Shellabarger,
Director, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans.
[FR Doc. 2011-5257 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8485-8486]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0981; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANE-105]

Revocation of Class D and E Airspace; Brunswick, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes the Class D and E Airspace at Brunswick
NAS Airport, Brunswick, ME, as the airport has closed and the
associated Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) removed,
eliminating the need for controlled airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 8, 2010. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The Brunswick NAS Airport in Brunswick, ME has closed in compliance
with the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act. In March 2009, The
Department of the Navy requested that the associated SIAPs and
controlled airspace be removed. As a result, this action will remove
the Class D, and E4 airspace for the Brunswick NAS Airport, Brunswick,
ME. This rule will become effective on the date specified in the DATES
section. Since this action eliminates the impact of controlled airspace
on users of the National Airspace System in the vicinity of the
Brunswick NAS Airport, Brunswick, ME, notice and public procedure under
5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Class D and Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6004 respectively of
FAA Order 7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 removes the Class D and E4 airspace at Brunswick NAS Airport,
Brunswick, ME. Controlled airspace is no longer needed as the airport
has closed.
    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, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the 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 removes controlled airspace at Brunswick NAS Airport, Brunswick,
ME.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace
* * * * *

ANE ME D Brunswick, ME [Removed]

Brunswick NAS Airport, ME
    (Lat. 43[deg]53'32'' N., long. 69[deg]56'19'' W.)
* * * * *

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

* * * * *

ANE ME E4 Brunswick, ME [Removed]

Brunswick NAS Airport, ME
    (Lat. 43[deg]53'32'' N., long. 69[deg]56'19'' W.)
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 21, 2010.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-3741 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 22618-22619]
[DOCID:fr13my09-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59882; File No. SR-ISE-2009-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by International Securities
Exchange, LLC Relating To Changes to the Fee Schedule

May 7, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 27, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to
eliminate customer fees in Premium Products that are multiply listed,
retire a pilot program capping fees for use of the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism and eliminate a volume-based fee rebate for
Electronic Access Members. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    Purpose--The purpose of this proposed rule change is to eliminate
customer fees in multiply listed Premium Products, retire a pilot
program capping fees for use of the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism
and eliminate a volume-based fee rebate for Electronic Access Members.
These changes will be operative on May 1, 2009.
    First, ISE currently charges $0.18 per contract for customer
transactions in Premium Products. Generally, Premium Products are
options on exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') and index options. For
competitive reasons, the Exchange historically has waived most customer
transaction fees and now proposes to do the same for all Premium
Products that are multiply listed. The Exchange will continue to charge
$0.18 per contract for all index options that are listed only on ISE
and for all of the Exchange's foreign currency options. ISE believes
this fee change will align its pricing to better compete with other
exchanges in these products. As a result of this change, the Exchange
will no longer publish a list of Premium Products on its Schedule of
Fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that on May 5, 2009, ISE filed a
separate proposed rule change (File No. SR-ISE-2009-26) to clarify
the newly defined ``Singly Listed Indexes'' by listing on its fee
schedule the applicable ticker symbol for each such index. In
addition, that proposal reverts back to identifying by ticker
symbols those products to which the Exchange's Payment for Order
Flow fee does not apply and it proposes to adopt a fee for ``Singly
Listed ETFs'' and identify those products by their ticker symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, pursuant to a pilot program, ISE currently offers a fee
discount for certain orders of 7,500 contracts or more that are
executed in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism.\4\ Specifically, ISE
waives (1) the execution fee on incremental volume above 7,500
contracts for Firm Proprietary orders, Non-ISE Market Maker orders,
Customer orders in Premium Products, and Customer orders in Second
Market options. The objective of this pilot program was to encourage
members to use the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism. The Exchange has
determined to retire this pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57129 (January 10,
2008), 73 FR 2963 (January 16, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, on October 1, 2008, ISE adopted a sliding scale-based fee
credit that rewards Electronic Access Members for the total amount of
order flow sent to the Exchange.\5\ The sliding scale applies to all
customer and firm proprietary orders in all products and is calculated
on a member firm basis, and applies to non-discounted volume only, that
is, it does not apply to orders previously discounted by other pricing
incentives established by the Exchange. The objective of this fee
rebate program was to attract order flow to the Exchange. Upon a
careful review, the ISE believes that eliminating fees for customer
transactions in multiply listed Premium Products will better attract
order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58671 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR
    57722 (October 3, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Basis--The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\7\ in particular, in
that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other
persons using its facilities. In particular, the fee changes proposed
by this filing will allow the Exchange to better compete with other
exchanges and better attract order flow to ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \9\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2). [sic]

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2009-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2009-21. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2009-21 and should be
submitted on or before June 3, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11169 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P