[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40845-40846]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-965-000]

EnergyCo Marketing and Trading, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

July 17, 2007.
    EnergyCo Marketing and Trading, LLC (EnergyCo) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule.
The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of
energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. EnergyCo
also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, EnergyCo requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by EnergyCo.
    On July 16, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the

requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The
Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time
for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be
heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability by EnergyCo should file a protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
August 15, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, EnergyCo is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of EnergyCo, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of EnergyCo's issuance of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14305 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 8934]
[DOCID:fr27fe09-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-698-000]

New Mexico MSW1 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

February 20, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
New Mexico MSW1 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 12, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4175 Filed 2-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19130-19132]
[FR Doc No: E9-9589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30663; Amdt. No 3318]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new

obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are
designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace
and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at
the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective April 28, 2009. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    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.
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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 17, 2009.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 07 MAY 2009

Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, LOC/DME BC RWY 20, Amdt 12

Effective 04 JUN 2009

Windsor Locks, CT, Bradley Intl, COPTER ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Orig-B

Windsor Locks, CT, Bradley Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, ILS RWY 6 (CAT II),
ILS RWY 6 (CAT III), Amdt 36B
Windsor Locks, CT, Bradley Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 10C
Windsor Locks, CT, Bradley Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 9B
Chicago, IL, Lansing Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Dixon, IL, Dixon Muni-Charles R Walgreen Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig
Dixon, IL, Dixon Muni-Charles R Walgreen Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig
Dixon, IL, Dixon Muni-Charles R Walgreen Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Dixon, IL, Dixon Muni-Charles R Walgreen Field, VOR-A, Amdt 10
Olathe, KS, Johnson County Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A
Lexington, KY, Blue Grass, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig, CANCELLED
Lexington, KY, Blue Grass, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig, CANCELLED
Mount Holly, NJ, South Jersey Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Bennettsville, SC, Marlboro County Jetport-H.E.Avent Field, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Pelion, SC, Lexington County At Pelion, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Atlanta, TX, Hall Miller Muni, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 4
Emporia, VA, Emporia-Greensville Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Casper, WY, Casper/Natrona County Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 6A
Casper, WY, Casper/Natrona County Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 25A
Casper, WY, Casper/Natrona County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1A
Casper, WY, Casper/Natrona County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1A

Effective 02 JUL 2009

Florala, AL, Florala Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Ankeny, IA, Ankeny Rgnl, GPS RWY 36, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
Ankeny, IA, Ankeny Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1
Ankeny, IA, Ankeny Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Cherokee, IA, Cherokee County Rgnl, NDB OR GPS RWY 36, Amdt 4,
CANCELLED
Cherokee, IA, Cherokee County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36, Orig
Cherokee, IA, Cherokee County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 36, Orig
Knoxville, IA, Knoxville Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 7, CANCELLED
Knoxville, IA, Knoxville Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 6, CANCELLED
Vinton, IA, Vinton Veterans Meml Arpk, NDB RWY 27, Amdt 4, CANCELLED
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 2
Lawrence, KS, Lawrence Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1
Battle Creek, MI, W K Kellogg, VOR RWY 23, Amdt 18
Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, ILS PRM RWY 3R
(Simultaneous Close Parallel), ILS PRM RWY 3R (CAT II), ILS PRM RWY 3R
(CAT III), Orig
Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, ILS PRM RWY 4L
(Simultaneous Close Parallel), Orig
Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, ILS PRM RWY 4R
(Simultaneous Close Parallel), ILS PRM RWY 4R (CAT II), ILS PRM RWY 4R
(CAT III), Orig
Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, ILS PRM RWY 21L
(Simultaneous Close Parallel), Orig
Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, ILS PRM RWY 22L
(Simultaneous Close Parallel), Orig
Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, ILS PRM RWY 22R
(Simultaneous Close Parallel), Orig
Holland, MI, Tulip City, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 26, Amdt 2
Holland, MI, Tulip City, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 3
Holland, MI, Tulip City, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Midland, MI, Jack Barstow, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1
Midland, MI, Jack Barstow, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1
Midland, MI, Jack Barstow, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Midland, MI, Jack Barstow, VOR-A, Amdt 7
Pellston, MI, Pellston Rgnl Airport Of Emmet County, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Sparta, MI, Paul C Miller-Sparta, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig
Sparta, MI, Paul C Miller-Sparta, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig
Sparta, MI, Paul C Miller-Sparta, VOR-A, Amdt 3
Sparta, MI, Paul C Miller-Sparta, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 25, Amdt 2,
CANCELLED
Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, LOC RWY 22,
Orig-A
Monett, MO, Monett Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Monett, MO, Monett Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Lorain/Elyria, OH, Lorain County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig
Lorain/Elyria, OH, Lorain County Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 3
New Lexington, OH, Perry County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig
New Lexington, OH, Perry County, VOR/DME RWY 26, Amdt 2
Casper, WY, Natrona County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 2
Casper, WY, Natrona County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1

[FR Doc. E9-9589 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 199 (Thursday, October 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61978-61980]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31037; Amdt. No. 3661]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective October 15, 2015. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma
City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part Sec.  97.20. The
applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A,
and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFRs and specifies
the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable
effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its
location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    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.
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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2015.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--Standard Instrument Approach Procedures

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 15 OCTOBER 2015

Demopolis, AL, Demopolis Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1
Demopolis, AL, Demopolis Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30, ILS RWY
30 (CAT II), ILS RWY 30 (CAT III), ILS RWY 30 (SA CAT I), Amdt 29
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30, Amdt 5
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 30, Amdt 3
Hayden, CO, Yampa Valley, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 10, Orig
Hayden, CO, Yampa Valley, ILS OR LOC/DME Y RWY 10, Amdt 3, CANCELED
Hayden, CO, Yampa Valley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 3
Hayden, CO, Yampa Valley, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10, Amdt 3
Hayden, CO, Yampa Valley, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10, Amdt 2
Telluride, CO, Telluride Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 3
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 27, Amdt 2
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, NDB RWY 27, Amdt 1A, CANCELED
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 13
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27L,
ILS RWY 27L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 27L (CAT II), Amdt 18A
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, ILS PRM RWY 27L, ILS
PRM RWY 27L (SA CAT I), ILS PRM RWY 27L (CAT II) (SIMULTANEOUS CLOSE
PARALLEL), Amdt 3A
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
ILS OR LOC RWY 20, ILS RWY 20 (CAT II), Amdt 3A
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
ILS OR LOC RWY 29, Amdt 11
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 2, Orig-B
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
LOC BC RWY 11, Amdt 11
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-B
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1A
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1A
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1A
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central IL Rgnl Arpt At Bloomington-Normal,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Peru, IL, Illinois Valley Rgnl-Walter A Duncan Field, LOC RWY 36,
Amdt 4
Peru, IL, Illinois Valley Rgnl-Walter A Duncan Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY
18, Amdt 1
Peru, IL, Illinois Valley Rgnl-Walter A Duncan Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY
36, Amdt 1
Peru, IL, Illinois Valley Rgnl-Walter A Duncan Field, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Oberlin, KS, Oberlin Muni, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 1
Oberlin, KS, Oberlin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Oberlin, KS, Oberlin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Frankfort, KY, Capital City, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 3
Frankfort, KY, Capital City, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 4
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2,
Amdt 18
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY
11, ILS RWY 11 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 11 (CAT II), ILS RWY 11 (CAT
III), Amdt 3
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY
29, Amdt 10
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, LOC RWY 20, Amdt
3
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2,
Amdt 2
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
11, Amdt 2
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
20, Amdt 3
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
29, Amdt 4
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
11, Amdt 1
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
20, Amdt 1
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
29, Amdt 2
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
New Orleans, LA, Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl, VOR/DME RWY 11,
Amdt 1
Reserve, LA, St John The Baptist Parish, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Reserve, LA, St John The Baptist Parish, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Reserve, LA, St John The Baptist Parish, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Reserve, LA, St John The Baptist Parish, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1
Houlton, ME, Houlton Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-B
Oxford, ME, Oxford County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-B
Oxford, ME, Oxford County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-B
Ludington, MI, Mason County, NDB RWY 26, Orig-A, CANCELED
Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, ILS Z OR
LOC RWY 30L, ILS Z RWY 30L (CAT II), Amdt 46A
Festus, MO, Festus Memorial, NDB OR GPS RWY 36, Amdt 2A, CANCELED
Festus, MO, Festus Memorial, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Festus, MO, Festus Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
4
Bowman, ND, Bowman Muni, GPS RWY 29, Orig, CANCELED
Bowman, ND, Bowman Muni, NDB RWY 29, Amdt 3, CANCELED
Bowman, ND, Bowman Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig,
CANCELED
Norwich, NY, Lt Warren Eaton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
Norwich, NY, Lt Warren Eaton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1
Norwich, NY, Lt Warren Eaton, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
4
Schenectady, NY, Schenectady County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-D
San Juan, PR, Fernando Luis Ribas Dominicci, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Lexington-Parsons, TN, Beech River Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
Lexington-Parsons, TN, Beech River Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1
Lexington-Parsons, TN, Beech River Rgnl, VOR-A, Orig-A, CANCELED
Nashville, TN, John C Tune, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 20, Amdt 2

Nashville, TN, John C Tune, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 2
Nashville, TN, John C Tune, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 2
Nashville, TN, John C Tune, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Austin, TX, Austin-Bergstrom Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35R, Amdt 1B
Austin, TX, Austin-Bergstrom Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35L, Orig
Austin, TX, Austin-Bergstrom Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35R, Orig
Castroville, TX, Castroville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1
Castroville, TX, Castroville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Castroville, TX, Castroville Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Eastland, TX, Eastland Muni, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 3A, CANCELED
Mosinee, WI, Central Wisconsin, VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 9B, CANCELED
Stevens Point, WI, Stevens Point Muni, VOR/DME RWY 3, Amdt 15,
CANCELED
Stevens Point, WI, Stevens Point Muni, VOR/DME RWY 21, Amdt 19,
CANCELED
Stevens Point, WI, Stevens Point Muni, VOR/DME RWY 30, Amdt 18,
CANCELED
Wisconsin Rapids, WI, Alexander Field South Wood County, VOR/DME OR
GPS-A, Amdt 9A, CANCELED

[FR Doc. 2015-25566 Filed 10-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 7474-7475]
[DOCID:fr19fe10-69]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0019; FRL-9114-2]

Adequacy Status of the North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte-
Gastonia-Rock Hill Bi-State Area Reasonable Further Progress Plan 8-
Hour Ozone Sub-Area Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation
Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public that it has found that the sub-
area motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the North Carolina
portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill bi-state area (hereafter
referred to as the Charlotte bi-state area) in the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) plan, submitted on November 30, 2009,
by the North Carolina Department of Air Quality (NC DAQ), are adequate
for transportation conformity purposes. The bi-state Charlotte moderate
1997 8-hour ozone area is comprised of Charlotte-Gastonia in North
Carolina; and Rock Hill (a portion of York County), South Carolina. The
North Carolina portion of the Charlotte bi-state area is comprised of
the following sub-areas or counties: Cabarrus, Gaston, partial of
Iredell (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships), Lincoln, Mecklenburg,
Rowan, and Union. North Carolina's RFP plan includes the required MVEBs
for volatile organic compounds (VOC), and voluntary MVEBs for nitrogen
oxides (NOX). This action relates only to the North Carolina
portion of the Charlotte bi-state area. EPA is considering South
Carolina's RFP for the applicable portion of York County in a separate
action. As a result of EPA's finding, which is being announced in this
notice, the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte bi-state area must
use the sub-area MVEBs for future conformity determinations for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.

DATES: These sub-area MVEBs are effective March 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianna Smith, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms. Smith can also be reached by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is simply an announcement of a
finding that EPA has already made. EPA Region 4 sent a letter to NC DAQ
on January 12, 2010, stating that the sub-area MVEBs identified for the
North Carolina portion of the Charlotte bi-state area in the 1997 8-
hour ozone RFP plan, submitted on November 30, 2009, are adequate and
must be used for transportation conformity determinations in the North
Carolina portion of the Charlotte bi-state area.
    EPA posted the availability of the sub-area MVEBs contained in the
North Carolina RFP plan on EPA's Web site on December 3, 2009, as part
of the adequacy process, for the purpose of soliciting comments. EPA's
adequacy comment period ran from December 3,

2009, through January 3, 2010. During EPA's adequacy comment period, no
adverse comments were received on the MVEBs for North Carolina portion
of the Charlotte bi-state area. Through this notice, EPA is informing
the public that these sub-area MVEBs are adequate for transportation
conformity. This finding has also been announced on EPA's conformity
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
pastsips.htm. The adequate sub-area MVEBs are provided in the following
table:

          CHARLOTTE (North Carolina Portion) 8-Hour Ozone MVEBS
                             [kilograms/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      County                           VOC        NOx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           2008 Sub-Area MVEBS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabarrus..........................................      6,941      7,324
Gaston............................................      5,132      7,647
Iredell*..........................................      3,601      5,637
Lincoln...........................................      2,726      2,948
Mecklenburg.......................................     26,368     34,526
Rowan.............................................      6,149      7,193
Union.............................................      6,299      5,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Iredell County MVEB for nonattainment area only.

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule, 40 CFR Part 93, requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to state air
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a
state implementation plan (SIP) means that transportation activities
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards.
    The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). EPA has also described the process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in a July 1, 2004, final rulemaking
entitled, ``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional
Rule Changes'' (69 FR 40004). Please note that an adequacy review is
separate from EPA's completeness review, and it should not be used to
prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the RFP plan for the North Carolina
portion of the Charlotte bi-state area. Even if EPA finds a budget
adequate, the RFP plan submittal could later be disapproved.
    Within 24 months from the effective date of this notice, the
transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new
MVEBs, if the demonstration has not already been made, pursuant to 40
CFR 93.104(e). See, 73 FR 4419 (January 24, 2008).

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

    Dated: February 3, 2010.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2010-3239 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 45)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12032-12034]
[DOCID:fr06mr08-10]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0262; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-021-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion * * *.

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0262;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-021-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2007-35, dated December 21, 2007 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to Canadair Regional
Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053,
Part 2, Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the
required CDCCL.

    The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
include the CDCCL data. You may obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.
    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''

Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Temporary Revision 2D-2, dated March 31,
2006, to Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part 2,
``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This proposed AD would allow revising the ALS of the Instructions
for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with later revisions of the
maintenance requirements manual (MRM) as an acceptable method of
compliance if the CDCCL is part of a later approved MRM revision, or if
the CDCCL is approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this
proposed AD.
    In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount
of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA
has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their
maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The
compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide
for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed
AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 700 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $56,000, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Docket No. FAA-2008-0262;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-021-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 7, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any
category, all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to Canadair Regional
Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053,
Part 2, Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the
required CDCCL.
    The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
include the CDCCL data.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or
before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCLs
specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) 2D-2, dated March
31, 2006, to Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part 2,
``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053.

    Note 1: The revision required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may
be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the applicable
maintenance requirements manual. When the TR has been included in
the general revision of the maintenance program, the general
revision may be inserted into the maintenance requirements manual,
provided the relevant information in the general revision is
identical to that in the applicable TR, and the temporary revision
may be removed.

    (2) After accomplishing the action specified in paragraph (f)(1)
of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are
part of a later revision of Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,''
of Part 2, ``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053, Revision 7, dated May 10,
2007, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA) (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved
as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: James Delisio, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-35,
dated December 21, 2007, and Bombardier Temporary Revision 2D-2,
dated March 31, 2006, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 28, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-4322 Filed 3-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32636-32637]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1039; Notice No. 25-547-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace, Models BD-500-1A10 and
BD-500-1A11 Series Airplanes; Flight Envelope Protection: Normal Load
Factor (g) Limiting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Special Conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier
Aerospace Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. These
airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with
an electronic flight control system that prevents the pilot from
inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative
airplane limit load factor. The applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type
certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series
airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as ``CSeries''). The
CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy
fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated
as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11.
Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and
144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.
    The design of the electronic flight control system for the CSeries
airplanes incorporates normal load factor limiting on a full time basis
that prevents the flightcrew from inadvertently or intentionally
exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This
feature is considered novel and unusual in that the current regulations
do not provide standards for maneuverability and controllability
evaluations for such systems.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes
meet the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1
through 25-129 thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the CSeries airplanes because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The CSeries airplanes will use a fly-by-wire electronic flight
control system (EFCS). This system provides an electronic interface
between the pilot's flight controls and the flight control surfaces for
both normal and failure states; and it generates the actual surface
commands that provide for stability augmentation and control about all
three airplane axes.
    The design of the EFCS incorporates the following novel or unusual
design feature: Normal load factor limiting on a full-time basis that
will prevent the flight crew from inadvertently or intentionally
exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This
feature is considered novel or unusual because the current regulations
do not provide standards for maneuverability and controllability
evaluations for such systems. Therefore, special conditions are needed
to ensure adequate maneuverability and controllability when using this
design feature.

Discussion

    Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 25 does not specify
requirements or policy for demonstrating maneuver control that impose
any handling qualities requirements beyond the design limit structural
loads. Nevertheless, some pilots have become accustomed to the
availability of this excess maneuver capacity in case of extreme
emergency such as upset recoveries or collision avoidance.
    As with previous fly-by-wire airplanes, the FAA has no regulatory
or safety reason to prohibit a design for an electronic flight control
system with load factor limiting. It is possible that pilots accustomed
to this feature feel more freedom in commanding full-stick displacement
maneuvers because of the following:
     Knowledge that the limit system will protect the
structure,
     Low stick force/displacement gradients,
     Smooth transition from pilot elevator control to limit
control.
    These special conditions will ensure adequate maneuverability and
controllability when using this design feature.

    The normal load factor limit on the CSeries airplanes is unique in
that traditional airplanes with conventional flight control systems
(mechanical linkages) are limited in the pitch axis only by the
elevator surface area and deflection limit. The elevator control power
is normally derived for adequate controllability and maneuverability at
the most critical longitudinal pitching moment. The result is that
traditional airplanes have a significant portion of the flight envelope
wherein maneuverability in excess of limit structural design values is
possible.
    These special conditions for the CSeries airplanes supplement the
applicable regulations, including Sec.  25.143, to accommodate the
unique features of the flight envelope limiting systems, and establish
an equivalent level of safety to the existing regulations.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-38-SC for the
Bombardier CSeries airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75285). No comments were received, and the
special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier
Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to
include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design
feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Bombardier Aerospace Models BD-
500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes.

Flight Envelope Protection: Normal Load Factor (g) Limiting

0
1. To meet the intent of adequate maneuverability and controllability
required by Sec.  25.143(a), and in addition to the requirements of
Sec.  25.143(a) and in the absence of other limiting factors, the
following special conditions based on Sec.  25.333(b) apply:
    a. The positive limiting load factor must not be less than:
    (1) 2.5g for the normal state of the electronic flight control
system with the high lift devices retracted.
    (2) 2.0g for the normal state of the electronic flight control
system with the high lift devices extended.
    b. The negative limiting load factor must be equal to or more
negative than:
    (1) Minus 1.0g for the normal state of the electronic flight
control system with the high lift devices retracted.
    (2) 0.0g for the normal state of the electronic flight control
system with high lift devices extended.
    c. Maximum reachable positive load factor wings level may be
limited by the characteristics of the electronic flight control system
or flight envelope protections (other than load factor protection)
provided that:
    (1) The required values are readily achievable in turns, and
    (2) That wings level pitch up is satisfactory.
    d. Maximum achievable negative load factor may be limited by the
characteristics of the electronic flight control system or flight
envelope protections (other than load factor protection) provided that:
    (1) Pitch down responsiveness is satisfactory, and
    (2) From level flight, 0g is readily achievable or alternatively, a
satisfactory trajectory change is readily achievable at operational
speeds. For the FAA to consider a trajectory change as satisfactory,
the applicant should propose and justify a pitch rate that provides
sufficient maneuvering capability in the most critical scenarios.
    e. Compliance demonstration with the above requirements may be
performed without ice accretion on the airframe.
    These special conditions do not impose an upper bound for the
normal load factor limit, nor do they require that the limit exist. If
the limit is set at a value beyond the structural design limit
maneuvering load factor ``n'' of Sec. Sec.  25.333(b) and 25.337(b) and
(c), there should be a very obvious positive tactile feel built into
the controller so that it serves as a deterrent to inadvertently
exceeding the structural limit.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 22, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-13241 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 0 2 9 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Certification of Pesticide Applicators 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable)  EPA ICR # 0155.08; 8500 17 9. Keywords: Pesticides, certification, pesticide applicators 10. Abstract: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) allows EPA to classify a pesticide as " restricted use" if the pesticide meets certain toxicity or risk criteria. Restricted use pesticides, because of their potential to harm persons of the environment, may be applied only by a certified applicator or by a person under their direct supervision. A person must meet certain standards of competency to become a certified applicator. Participating States develop certified applicator programs which must be approved by the Agency before they can be implemented. In non participating States, EPA administers the certification program.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. O Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 424,398 b. Total annual responses 424,398 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 1,311,368 d. Current OMB inventory 1,285,865 e. Difference + 25,503 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment + 25,503 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f.. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. O Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. O Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 564 0258 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95