[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 57 (Friday, March 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16200-16201]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-101-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Request
for Extension of Time

    Take notice that on March 19, 2021, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) grant an extension of time until May 3, 2023 to
complete construction of, and place into service, its Northeast Supply
Enhancement (NESE) Project located in Pennsylvania, onshore and
offshore New Jersey, and offshore New York as authorized in the Order
Issuing Certificate (Order) on May 3, 2019.\1\ Ordering Paragraph
(B)(1) of the Order required Transco to complete the construction of
the NESE Project facilities and make them available for service within
two years of the date of the Order, or by May 3, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 167 FERC ]
61,110 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 15, 2020, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) denied Transco's application for a water quality
certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Simultaneously,
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection denied Transco's
application for a water quality certification and other individual
permits. As part of its denial, NYSDEC

cites lack of demand for the NESE Project. Transco asserts that the
market disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is temporary and a
need for additional firm transportation remains. Transco states that
its binding precedent agreement with National Grid remains in full
force and effect and Transco remains fully committed to constructing
the NESE Project. Transco avers the COVID-19 pandemic is also having a
direct and adverse impact on state and local areas resources and
Transco's development of the NESE Project. Moreover, Transco states
that it plans to refile its section 401 applications later this year.
Transco avers that postponement of the in-service date for the NESE
Project has no impact on the public interest findings in the Order and
the environmental record is current and relevant. Accordingly, Transco
now requests an additional two years, or until May 3, 2023, to complete
the construction of the NESE Project and make it available for service.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Transco's request for
an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be
considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment
date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.10).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Only motions to intervene from entities that were party to
the underlying proceeding will be accepted. Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 39 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural
Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order
issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,\3\ the
Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\4\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension.\5\ The Commission will not consider arguments that re-
litigate the issuance of the Order, including whether the Commission
properly found the project to be in the public convenience and
necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for the
certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\6\ At
the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance.\7\ The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on those extension requests that are
uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2020).
    \4\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \5\ Id. P 40.
    \6\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
    \7\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning COVID-19, issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. To mail
via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426. To mail via any other courier, use the following address:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2021.

    Dated: March 22, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06302 Filed 3-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51498-51499]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21084]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0739; Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Restricted Area R-7201; Farallon De
Medinilla Island; Mariana Islands, GU

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to expand the lateral boundary of
restricted area R-7201, Farallon De Medinilla Island, Mariana Islands,
GU. The expanded restricted airspace would be used to support strategic
and attack bombing, close air support bombing, naval gunfire, and
strafing and special operations training. This action also proposes to
rename the restricted area from R-7201 to R-7201A.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-
0739 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-11, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
www.regulations.gov. Comments on environmental and land use aspects
should be directed to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific,
Attention: MIRC Airspace EA/OEA Project Manager, 258 Makalapa Drive,
Suite 100, Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Stahl, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the restricted area airspace at Farallon
De Medinilla Island, Mariana Islands, GU, to enhance aviation safety
and accommodate essential U.S. Navy training requirements.

Background

    The Department of the Navy is seeking to expand R-7201 out from its
current 3-nautical mile (NM) radius to a 12-NM radius. The proposed
action is needed in order to support training activities that involve
the use of advanced weapons systems which the current airspace does not
sufficiently and safely provide. The Navy and other services require
fully capable training and testing range complexes (land, sea, and
airspace) that provide realistic and controlled environments with
sufficient surface Danger Zones (DZs) and Special Use Airspace vital
for safety and mission success.
    Farrallon de Medinilla (FDM) consists of the island land mass and
the restricted airspace designated R-7201. The land mass is
approximately 1.7 miles long and 0.3 miles wide. It contains a live-
fire and inert bombing range and supports live-fire and inert
engagements such as surface-to-ground and air-to-ground gunnery,
bombing and missile exercises, fire support, and precision weapons.
Restricted Area R-7201 surrounds FDM and the surrounding waters within
a 3-NM radius from center extending from the surface to Flight Level
(FL) 600. FDM and R-7201 are the Department of Defense's (DOD) only
United States controlled range in the western Pacific available to
forward-deployed forces for live-fire and inert training. For this
reason, it plays a unique role in national defense. R-7201's location
is ideal for access and availability and its relative isolation
facilitates a variety of attack profiles.
    Due to Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands'
(CNMI) strategic location and DOD's ongoing reassessment of the Western
Pacific military alignment, there has been a dramatic increase in the
importance of the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) as a training
venue and its capabilities to support required military training.
Flight training profiles, altitudes and speed are severely restricted
to ensure containment due to the small size of the current restricted
area. In order to fully exploit the capabilities of modern weapons
systems and provide the required training scenarios that replicate
conditions encountered during deployments today, it is necessary to
expand R-7201 laterally. This action would enable the military to
continue to achieve and maintain service readiness using the MIRC to
support and conduct current, emerging, and future training activities.
The proposed R-7201 expansion would support naval gun fire training,
readiness and the utilization of advanced lasers with Nominal Ocular
Hazard Distance that exceed the current 3 NM constraints of the
existing airspace. Additionally, the expansion would serve to support
the U.S. Air Force's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(ISR)/Strike program. It is anticipated that a 45 percent increase in
operations and training would occur within the expanded airspace and
will accommodate an increased training tempo, newer aircraft and weapon
systems that are commensurate with the ISR/Strike mission that the
current airspace cannot support.
    The Navy has leased FDM from CNMI since 1971 and in 1983 negotiated
a 50-year lease with an option to renew for another 50 years. No
maneuver training is permitted on FDM and the nearshore waters are
leased to the U.S. for military purposes, specifically for use as a
live fire naval gunfire and air warfare air strike training range. As
such, FDM and its nearshore area have always been an off-limits area to
all personnel both civilian and military due to unexploded ordnance
concerns. In addition to the proposed R-7201 expansion, the DZ around
FDM would be expanded to 12 NM to align with the proposed restricted
airspace. The DZ would restrict all private and commercial vessels from
entering the area only when hazardous activities are scheduled.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2014-0739 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-11) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-0739 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-11.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person at the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW.,
Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to expand the
lateral dimensions of restricted area R-7201, Farallon De Medinilla
Island, Mariana Islands, GU and rename it R-7201A. The proposed R-7201A
would be the minimum size required for containing stand-off weapons
employment, naval gun fire training, and laser activities conducted
there. The actual usage of the restricted area is estimated to be 4-5
days per week, 3-6 hours per day with 1,680 sorties per year.
    The proposed R-7201A boundary would extend the current boundary
from 3 NM to 12 NM from latitude 16[deg]01'04'' N., longitude
146[deg]03'31'' E.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (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 proposed 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.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 is amended to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.72  Guam [Amended]

0
2. Sec.  73.72 is amended as follows:

R-7201 Farallon De Medinilla Island Mariana Islands, GU [Removed]

R-7201A Farallon De Medinilla Island Mariana Islands, GU [New]

    Boundaries: Beginning at latitude 16[deg]01'04'' N., longitude
146[deg]03'31'' E.; extending outward in a 12 NM radius.
    Altitudes: Surface up to and including FL 600.
    Times of Use: As scheduled by NOTAM 12 hours in advance.
    Controlling Agency: FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control.
    Using Agency: Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19, 2015.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2015-21084 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3630-3631]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0036; Product Identifier 2017-SW-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (Bell) Model 212, Model 412, and Model
412EP helicopters. This proposed AD would require replacing the
emergency flotation system (EFS) tube assembly. This proposed AD is
prompted by a report of an EFS tube assembly failure. The actions of
this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these
helicopters.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0036; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Rieger, Aviation Safety Engineer,
DSCO Branch, AIR-7J0, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Bell Model 212, Model 412, and
Model 412EP helicopters with an EFS tube assembly part number (P/N)
412-073-820-101 with a date of manufacture before July 28, 2016. This
proposed AD is prompted by a report from Bell that an EFS tube assembly
separated from the valve during a 2-year inflation test. A subsequent
investigation found that excessive sleeve preset force during
manufacturing caused cracks in the sleeve of the tube assembly, which
may result in the EFS float failing to deploy. Bell determined that
only those EFS tube assemblies with P/N 412-073-820-101 that were
shipped prior to July 28, 2016, were subject to this manufacturing
defect. Bell states that because this manufacturing defect is difficult
to detect, affected EFS tube assemblies in service must be replaced.
The affected parts were associated with a single Bell supplier that is
no longer manufacturing the tube assembly.
    Accordingly, this proposed AD would require replacing the EFS tube
assemblies and would prohibit installing an affected EFS tube assembly
on any helicopter. We are proposing this AD to prevent installing a
cracked EFS tube assembly, which could result in failure of the EFS
floats to deploy during an emergency water landing.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 212-11-143 and ASB
412-11-147, both Revision C and dated December 22, 2016. Each ASB
describes and illustrates procedures to replace the tube assembly
within 600 flight hours or by March 31, 2017.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 300 hours time-in-service
(TIS), replacing any EFS tube assembly P/N 412-073-820-101 that was
manufactured before July 28, 2016. This proposed AD would also prohibit
installing an EFS tube assembly P/N 412-073-820-101 that was
manufactured before July 28, 2016 on any helicopter.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The ASBs require compliance within 600 flight hours or by March 31,
2017; this proposed AD would require compliance within 300 hours TIS.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 250 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this proposed AD. At an average

labor rate of $85 per hour, replacing a tube assembly would require
about 6 work-hours and required parts would cost $4,902, for a total
cost of $5,412 per helicopter and $1,353,000 for the U.S. fleet.
    According to Bell's service information, some of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by
Bell. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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, 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. 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 an economic 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, Incorporation by
Reference, 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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0036; Product
Identifier 2017-SW-015-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (Bell) Model
212, Model 412, and Model 412EP helicopters, certificated in any
category, with an emergency flotation system (EFS) tube assembly
part number (P/N) 412-073-820-101 with a date of manufacture before
July 28, 2016, or an unknown date of manufacture installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on an EFS tube
assembly. This condition could result in failure of the emergency
floats to inflate during an emergency water landing.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 27, 2018.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 300 hours time-in-service:
    (i) Remove the EFS tube assembly from service.
    (ii) Lubricate the shoulder of the sleeves, threads, and seat of
each mating fitting with anti-seize compound.
    (iii) Install an EFS tube assembly not listed in paragraph (a)
of this AD.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an EFS
tube assembly listed in paragraph (a) of this AD on any helicopter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, DSCO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this
AD. Send your proposal to: Rory Rieger, Aviation Safety Engineer,
DSCO Branch, AIR-7J0, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletins 212-11-143 and 412-11-
147, both Revision C and dated December 22, 2016, which are not
incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the
subject of this AD. For service information identified in this
proposed rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482,
Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a copy of
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3212 Emergency
Flotation Section.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 12, 2018.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-01195 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 26)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7228-7229]
[DOCID:fr07fe08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29036; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-13]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Point Roberts, WA (Abbotsford,
BC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Point
Roberts, WA. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to support
flight operations at Abbotsford Airport, BC. The FAA is proposing this
action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at the request of the Canadian Government.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-
29036; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-13, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2007-29036 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-13) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2007-29036 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-13''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://.

www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Point
Roberts, WA (Abbotsford, BC). Controlled airspace is necessary to allow
east bound departures to transition into the en route environment for
the safety and management of IFR operations at Abbotsford Airport, BC.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (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 proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority for 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 II, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would allow for the safety of departing aircraft transitioning to
the en route environment at Abbotsford Airport, BC, through United
States airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 1,200
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WA E5 Point Roberts, WA (Abbotsford, BC) [New]

Abbotsford Airport, BC, Canada
    (Lat. 49[deg]01'31'' N., long. 122[deg]21'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 49[deg]00'00'' N., long.
122[deg]15'00'' W.; thence east along the Canadian U.S. Border to
lat. 49[deg]00'00'' N., long. 121[deg]20'15'' W.; thence south to
lat. 48[deg]51'40'' N., long. 121[deg]20'15'' W.; thence west to
lat. 48[deg]51'40'' N., long. 122[deg]15'00'' W.; thence back to the
point of origination.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 14, 2007.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area.
 [FR Doc. E8-2221 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 67005-67006]
[DOCID:fr17no06-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54734; File No. SR-SCCP-2006-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Stock Clearing Corporation of
Philadelphia; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Definition of a Margin Member

November 9, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On August 14, 2006, Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia
(``SCCP'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-SCCP-2006-02 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\
Notice of the proposal was published in the Federal Register on
September 29, 2006.\2\ No comment letters were received. For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission is

granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54488, (September 22,
2006), 71 FR 57598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The rule change amends the definition of ``margin member'' in SCCP
Rule 1, Definitions, to accommodate the introduction of equity market
makers on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange (``Phlx'') and to reflect the
introduction of Phlx's new equity trading system, XLE, which will
replace Phlx's equity trading floor.\3\ XLE is an electronic trading
system which will provide for the entry, display, ranking, routing, and
execution of orders in NMS stocks\4\ for its members and member
organizations (``XLE Participants''). The current equity specialists
will be replaced by market makers, a type of XLE Participant, which
will be liquidity providers on XLE.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54538 (September 28,
2006), 71 FR 59184 (October 6, 2006) [File No. SR-Phlx-2006-43]
(Order granting approval of a proposed rule change relating to
Phlx's new equity trading system, XLE).
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
    \5\ Not every security on XLE will require a market maker.
However, if a market maker or multiple market makers choose to
register in a security, they must provide a two-sided market in that
security on XLE during regular trading hours (usually 9:30 AM to
4:00 PM) of the security. Therefore, some securities on XLE may have
no market makers or may have one or more market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCCP Rule 1, Definitions, currently defines ``margin members'' as
SCCP participants that are Phlx specialists, alternate specialists, or
other Phlx floor members specifically approved by the National
Securities Clearing Corporation to effect trading in a margin account.
Margin members that clear and settle their transactions through SCCP's
``omnibus clearance and settlement account'' at NSCC receive margin
accounts from SCCP.\6\ SCCP expects that many of its current margin
members that are Phlx specialists, alternate specialists, or other Phlx
floor members will become XLE Participants, including market makers,
upon approval of XLE. This rule change amends the definition of margin
member in SCCP's rules to add the term market maker\7\ and to remove
the word floor from the term Phlx floor member. This will allow SCCP
members that are currently margin members under Rule 1 of SCCP's rules
to maintain their status as margin members following Phlx's transition
to XLE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SCCP Rule 9, Margin Accounts.
    \7\ The rule change in File No. SR-Phlx-2006-43 defines the term
``market maker'' in Phlx Rule 1, Definitions, paragraph (m). It also
adds new rules 170 through 174 to set forth the registration
requirements, rights, and obligations of Phlx market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCCP believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A of the Act\8\ because the proposed rule change is designed
to allow current SCCP margin members to maintain their status as they
transition from the current floor based trading environment at Phlx to
the XLE electronic trading system and would thereby promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system
for the prompt and accurate clearance of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\9\ SCCP
is a member of NSCC and has an omnibus clearance and settlement account
at NSCC through which its margin members' transactions are cleared and
settled. The proposed rule change amends the definition of margin
member in SCCP's rules to accommodate the Phlx rule change regarding
XLE that was recently approved by the Commission. The proposed rule
change neither affects the services SCCP may provide to its member nor
affects SCCP's agreement with NSCC to clear and settle transactions
submitted through SCCP's omnibus account. Accordingly, because the
proposed rule change is designed to be consistent with the new Phlx
rules for the XLE trading platform and to avoid any confusion with
respect to the services SCCP's members may receive either directly from
SCCP or through SCCP's omnibus clearance and settlement account at
NSCC, we find that it is designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-SCCP-2006-02) be and hereby
is approved.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E6-19422 Filed 11-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19125-19128]
[FR Doc No: E9-9433]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 34

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0112; Amendment No. 34-4]
RIN 2120-AJ41

Emission Standards for Turbine Engine Powered Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the emission standards for turbine engine
powered airplanes to incorporate the standards adopted by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule also amends
certain test procedures for gaseous exhaust emissions, which are based
on the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) for gaseous emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX).
This rule will bring the standards of 14 CFR part 34 into alignment
with 40 CFR part 87 as required.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective June 29, 2009. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
June 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule, contact Aimee Fisher, Emissions Division (AEE-300),
Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
7705; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this
rule, contact Karen Petronis (AGC-200), Office of the Chief Counsel,
Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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 III, Section 44714, Aviation Fuel
Standards. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
standards to control or eliminate aircraft emissions that the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has found to
endanger the public health or welfare, pursuant to his authority found
in Section 231 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7571). These regulations
are within the scope of that authority because we are adopting the
standards previously mandated by the EPA.

Background

    Section 232 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (the Act), 42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq., requires the FAA to issue regulations that ensure
compliance with all aircraft emission standards promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 231 of the Act.
    The EPA originally promulgated standards for engine fuel venting
emissions, engine smoke emissions, and exhaust gas emissions of
unburned hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and
carbon monoxide (CO) in 40 CFR part 87. Since the EPA established the
first standards in 1973, the FAA has worked with the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to develop international aircraft
exhaust emissions standards for NOX, CO, HC, and smoke (SN).
The FAA added the 1997 EPA standards for NOX and CO in
February 1999 (64 FR 5556, February 3, 1999).
    In September 2003, the EPA proposed new standards for engine fuel
venting emissions, engine smoke emissions, and exhaust gaseous
emissions of NOX (68 FR 56226, September 30, 2003). The
proposal was designed to align the U.S. emissions standards with those
of ICAO.
    The EPA adopted the proposed standards in November 2005 (70 FR
69664, November 17, 2005). The National Association of Clean Air
Agencies (NACAA) sought review of the EPA's action, arguing that the
EPA's interpretation of the Act was impermissible. The EPA had found
that the Act does not require the agency to subordinate all other
concerns to emissions reduction and reach a ``technology-forcing''
result. In essence, NACAA argued that the 2005 standards did not
require enough reduction in emissions and that the EPA had failed to
set a firm timeline for tightening the standards in the future.
    On June 1, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District Of Columbia Circuit found in favor of the EPA (489 F.3d 1221).
The court accepted the EPA's interpretation of the Act and its
responsibilities in setting aircraft emissions standards. With that
challenge to the standards no longer at issue, we are amending 14 CFR
part 34 to reflect the standards promulgated by the EPA in 2005.

Analysis of Rule as Adopted

    Although the language of this amendment is not identical to the
comparable sections adopted by the EPA, any differences are solely the
result of differences in format between the sets of regulations in 40
CFR and 14 CFR. No changes in the standards were meant nor may any be
implied by any differences between the sets of regulations.
    Sections 34.64, 34.71, 34.82, and 34.89 of 14 CFR are amended by
revising the incorporation by reference to specify that the system and
procedures for sampling and measurement of gaseous emissions are those
found in ICAO Annex 16, Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft
Engine Emissions, Second Edition, July 1993, through Amendment 3 (March
20, 1997). This amendment also corrects the effective date of Volume
II, removes the reference to the FAA Rules Docket Room, and updates the
address for ICAO's Document Sales Unit.
    The only substantive changes to this regulation are the
NOX standards added in Sec.  34.21(d)(1)(vi). All other
changes are reference updates to the newer version of ICAO Annex 16 as
noted.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public.
    An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information,
nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number. We have determined that there is no current or new
requirement for information collection associated with this amendment.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
    Rulemaking actions by the FAA usually trigger a full regulatory
evaluation of the potential monetary costs that would be imposed and
benefits generated (including separate analyses for regulatory
flexibility, international trade impact, and unfunded mandates).
However, this regulation brings the regulations in 14 CFR into
conformity with existing EPA regulations. A full regulatory evaluation
is unwarranted because the FAA is not imposing a new rule on the
aviation industry. The EPA has accounted for any costs associated with
these changes in its rulemaking (70 FR 69664, November 17, 2005).
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a 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.
    This final rule revises the emission standards for turbine engine
airplanes and test procedures for gaseous exhaust emissions. With this
final rule, the FAA adopts a previously approved EPA rule to bring the
standards of 14 CFR part 34 into alignment with 40 CFR part 87 as
required by law. Therefore, as the acting FAA Administrator, I certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards are not considered unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a
legitimate domestic objective, such the protection of safety, and do
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective.
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
notes the purpose is to ensure the safety of the American public and
has assessed the effects of this rule to ensure it does not exclude
imports that meet this objective. As a result, this final rule will
impose the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus
has a neutral trade impact.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not
contain such a

mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Environmental Analysis

    In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, the FAA has determined that
this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under
section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This
action is categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1E, Chapter 3,
paragraph 312a, which covers ``all FAA actions to ensure compliance
with EPA aircraft emissions standards.'' This rule amends the emission
standards for turbine engine powered airplanes, and certain test
procedures for gaseous exhaust emissions, to incorporate the standards
adopted by the EPA based on the ICAO standards for gaseous emissions of
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). This rule brings FAA regulatory
standards for emissions into alignment with EPA emissions standards, as
required by law. This action qualifies for a categorical exclusion
because no significant impacts to the environment are expected to
result from its finalization or implementation and no extraordinary
circumstances exist as prescribed under Chapter 3, paragraph 304 of
Order 1050.1E.

 Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

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

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.DOT.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

Good Cause for Adoption of This Final Rule

    This regulation is being promulgated as a final rule without notice
and opportunity for prior public comment. The standards adopted in this
rule were the subject of full notice and comment rulemaking by the EPA,
and were published as amendments to 40 CFR part 87 in 2005. They are
already required for aircraft engine certification under those
regulations. Accordingly, we have determined that notice and prior
public comment has already been accomplished. The FAA has no reason to
believe that a request for public comment at this time would result in
a receipt of useful information. Opportunity for public comment was
provided by the EPA in its 2003 NPRM, and comments received were
addressed by that agency.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 34

    Air pollution control, Aircraft, Incorporation by reference.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 34 as
follows:

PART 34--FUEL VENTING AND EXHAUST EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR TURBINE
ENGINE POWERED AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 34 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g),
40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44714.

0
2. Amend Sec.  34.21 to add new paragraph (d)(1)(vi) to read as
follows:

Sec.  34.21  Standards for exhaust emissions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) The emission standards of this paragraph apply as prescribed
after December 18, 2005. For engines of a type or model of which the
first individual production model was manufactured after December 31,
2003:
    (A) That have a rated pressure ratio of 30 or less and a maximum
rated output greater than 89 kilonewtons: Oxides of Nitrogen: (19 + 1.6
(rPR)) grams/kilonewtons rO.
    (B) That have a rated pressure ratio of 30 or less and a maximum
rated output greater than 26.7 kilonewtons but not greater than 89
kilonewtons: Oxides of Nitrogen: (37.572 + 1.6(rPR) -0.2087(rO)) grams/
kilonewtons rO.
    (C) That have a rated pressure ratio greater than 30 but less than
62.5, and a maximum rated output greater than 89 kilonewtons: Oxides of
Nitrogen (7 + 2(rPR)) grams/kilonewtons rO.
    (D) That have a rated pressure ratio greater than 30 but less than
62.5, and a maximum rated output greater than 26.7 kilonewtons but not
greater than 89 kilonewtons: Oxides of Nitrogen: (42.71 + 1.4286(rPR) -
0.4013(rO) + 0.00642(rPR x rO)) grams/kilonewtons rO.
    (E) That have a rated pressure ratio of 62.5 or more: Oxides of
Nitrogen: (32 + 1.6 (rPR)) grams/kilonewtons rO.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  34.64 to read as follows:

Sec.  34.64   Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring gaseous
exhaust emissions.

    The system and procedure for sampling and measurement of gaseous

emissions shall be as specified by in Appendices 3 and 5 to the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 16,
Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft Engine Emissions, Second
Edition, July 1993, effective July 26, 1993, through Amendment 3 (March
20, 1997). This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. This document can be obtained from the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO), Document Sales Unit, 999 University
Street, Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada, phone +1<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
http://icaodsu.openface.ca/mainpage.ch2. Copies can be reviewed at the
FAA New England Regional Office, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

0
4. Revise Sec.  34.71 to read as follows:

Sec.  34.71   Compliance with gaseous emission standards.

    Compliance with each gaseous emission standard by an aircraft
engine shall be determined by comparing the pollutant level in grams/
kilonewton/thrust/cycle or grams/kilowatt/cycle as calculated in Sec.
34.64 with the applicable emission standard under this part. An
acceptable alternative to testing every engine is described in Appendix
6 to ICAO Annex 16, Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft
Engine Emissions, Second Edition, July 1993, effective July 26, 1993,
including all amendments through Amendment 3 (March 20, 1997). This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This
document can be obtained from the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street,
Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada, phone +1<PHONE_NUMBER>, or http://icaodsu.openface.ca/mainpage.ch2. Copies can be reviewed at the FAA New
England Regional Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Other methods of demonstrating compliance may be approved by the FAA
Administrator with the concurrence of the Administrator of the EPA.

0
5. Revise Sec.  34.82 to read as follows:

Sec.  34.82   Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring smoke
exhaust emissions.

    The system and procedures for sampling and measurement of smoke
emissions shall be as specified by Appendix 2 to ICAO Annex 2 to ICAO
Annex 16, Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft Engine
Emissions, Second Edition, July 1993, effective July 26, 1993, through
Amendment 3 (March 20, 1997). This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This document can be obtained from the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Document Sales Unit,
999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada, phone +1 514-
954-8022, or http://icaodsu.openface.ca/mainpage.ch2. Copies can be
reviewed at the FAA New England Regional Office, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

0
6. Revise Sec.  34.89 to read as follows:

Sec.  34.89   Compliance with smoke emission standards.

    Compliance with each smoke emission standard shall be determined by
comparing the plot of SN as a function of power setting under the
applicable emission standard under this part. The SN at every power
setting must be such that there is a high degree of confidence that the
standard will not be exceeded by any engine of the model being tested.
An acceptable alternative to testing every engine is described in
Appendix 6 to ICAO Annex 16, Environmental Protection, Volume II,
Aircraft Engine Emissions, Second Edition, July 1993, effective July
16, 1993, including all amendments through Amendment 3 of March 20,
1997. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. This document can be obtained from the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street,
Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada, phone +1<PHONE_NUMBER>, or http://icaodsu.openface.ca/mainpage.ch2. Copies can be reviewed at the FAA New
England Regional Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Other methods of demonstrating compliance may be approved by the FAA
Administrator with the concurrence of the Administrator of the EPA.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 20, 2009.
Lynne A. Osmus,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-9433 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE SE.

WASHINGTON DC, 20590	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

July 18, 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Small Business Economic Burden Calculations for Trailer SISNOSE
Analysis

FROM:	Jessica Brakora, Engineer, Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Dockets
NHTSA-2014-0132 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memo documents the calculations used to determine the economic
burden of the trailer-specific small businesses potentially impacted by
the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 rules.  For more
information regarding the use of these calculations, see section XIV.D
of the preamble to these rules and the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis found in Chapter 12 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).

The agencies are providing a one-year delay as a small business
flexibility.  Since the costs to a business are delayed and not expected
to change with that one year, for this analysis, the “first year” is
assumed to be 2017 for all trailer manufacturers and costs are evaluated
for the 11 years out to 2027.  The one-year delay simply allows
manufacturers to spread out some of the initial capital costs and become
familiar with the compliance processes at a more gradual pace.

EPA estimated trailer compliance costs based on four general categories:
 startup costs, infrastructure costs, testing costs, and continuous
costs.  Startup and infrastructure costs would be accrued in the first
year, but payment is expected to be distributed over multiple years.
The number of vehicle families impacts the continuous compliance costs.
Small manufacturers that produce both box vans and non-box trailers are
assumed to submit information for six families for compliance.
Manufacturers that produce only box vans are assumed to have three
families, and manufacturers that only produce non-box trailers (tanks,
flatbeds and/or container chassis) are assumed to have a single family.

Startup costs include computer system and software updates, equipment
and software needed for labeling, resources for user manuals, and
training for these systems.  Manufacturers that produce box vans are
expected to need more sophisticated software to track purchases and
perform compliance calculations.  As a result, the cost of the computer
software and training for manufacturers that only produce non-box
trailers are half the cost estimated for box van manufacturers.
Labeling equipment is consistent for all manufacturers.  Startup costs
are estimated to be $65,600 for any manufacturers that produce box vans
and $46,500 for manufacturers that only produce non-box trailers.  These
costs are assumed to be zero beyond the first year of the program.

Infrastructure costs are also only estimated for box van manufacturers
who may need additional storage space for aerodynamic devices or process
changes to include device installation in their manufacturing line.  We
estimated a warehouse construction cost of $250,000 for large
manufacturers and $125,000 for small manufacturers who produce fewer
trailers and would require less storage.  Including process adjustments,
infrastructure costs are estimated to be $129,700 for small
manufacturers.  These costs are assumed to be zero beyond the first year
of the program.

The agencies developed the trailer program such that manufacturers have
the ability to use pre-approved test data from aerodynamic device
manufacturers in lieu of performing their own tests.  Similarly, it is
expected that the tire manufacturers will provide tire rolling
resistance data to the trailer manufacturers.  We expect some large
manufacturers will perform their own aerodynamic testing, but we assumed
all small manufacturers would take advantage of the pre-approved data
and perform zero testing.  We do expect the small manufacturers will
review the test procedures in the regulations in order to be familiar
with the requirements of the program.  However, we do not anticipate
they will accrue additional costs associated with the tests.  We
estimate testing costs of $1300 in the first year of the program for
test procedure review by the engineers and managers.

Continuous costs include review of the regulations and guidance
documents, evaluation of aerodynamic device (box vans only) and tire
performance data, maintenance of the user manuals, training for device
installation, data collection and compliance calculations (box vans
only), preparation of certification application and end-of-year reports,
and data storage.  In the early years, costs to evaluate test data are
expected to be larger, when the program is new and more devices and
tires will need evaluation.  In addition to the reviewing the
regulations, we estimate 50 existing aerodynamic devices and 100 tire
models will be evaluated in the first year of the program at a cost of
$55,100 for any manufacturer that produces vans, and $15,000 for
manufacturers that exclusively produce non-box trailers.  In the
following years, five new tire models and 10 new aerodynamic devices are
estimated to be evaluated per year in addition to submitting compliance
information.  The number of certification applications and compliance
calculations depend on the number of families.  We assume 40 separate
labels may be needed for small manufacturers’ annual box van
production.  Non-box manufacturers will not have to make significant
updates to their labels annually.  The continuous costs for small
manufacturers that produce both box vans and non-box trailers are
estimated to be $58,200 after the first year.  Those that only produce
box vans would have continuous costs of $48,100 and those that only
produce non-box trailers would be $18,900.    REF _Ref455475832 \h
Table 1  summarizes these intermediate costs.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1   Estimated Small Business Manufacturer
Costs Based on Trailers Produced

	Vans & Non-Box

(6 Families)	Vans Only

(3 Families)	Non-Box Only

(1 Family)

	First

Year	Program Year	First

Year	Program Year	First

Year	Program Year

Start-Up	$65,600	$0	$65,600	$0	$46,500	$0

Infrastructure	$129,700	$0	$129,700	$0	$0	$0

Testing (aero and tire)	$1,300	$0	$1,300	$0	$0	$0

Continuous	$55,100	$58,200	$55,100	$48,100	$15,000	$18,900

EPA identified 178 trailer manufacturers.  Of those manufacturers, 147
companies qualify as small businesses according to SBA’s threshold of
1000 employees or fewer.  We believe 73 of these small businesses
exclusively manufacturer non-box trailers that are excluded from the
Phase 2 program with zero regulatory requirements and no associated
costs.  We believe 69 small businesses manufacturer the three types of
non-box trailer that are included in the trailer program (tanks,
flatbeds, and/or container chassis) or a combination of those trailers
and excluded trailers.  These non-box trailers have design-based tire
standards with an estimated 11-year average annual cost of $22,700 for
compliance.  We believe three of the small businesses exclusively
manufacture box vans and the estimated 11-year average annual cost for
the van-only manufacturers is $66,600.  The two small manufacturers that
produce both box van and non-box trailers would have average annual
costs of $75,800.    REF _Ref455475684 \h  Table 2  summarizes the
costs.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2   Estimated Annual Average Small Business
Manufacturer Costs Based on Trailers Produced

	Vans & Non-Box	Vans Only	Non-Box Only	Excluded Vehicles

Number of Small Manufacturers	3	2	69	73

11-Year Average Annual Cost	$75,800	$66,000	$22,700	$0

EPA used 2014 annual revenue information from Hoovers online database to
estimate the number of businesses that would be significantly impacted
by these rules.  The 11-year average compliance costs for the specific
trailer production and business size was estimated to evaluate economic
impact.  As shown in   REF _Ref455475787 \h  Table 3 , it was found that
129 (88%) of the 147 small business trailer manufacturers would have an
impact less than one percent of their annual revenue.  The impact was
between one and three percent for 15 manufacturers (10%) and greater
than three percent for three manufacturers (2%).  When considering the
first year costs only (which are higher than the average costs), 119
manufacturers have an impact less than one percent, 11 manufacturers
have an impact between one and three percent, and 17 manufacturers have
an impact greater than three percent.  Even using the first-year costs,
less than 20 percent of the industry is impacted by greater than one
percent of their annual revenue. See the attached Excel file for the
specific trailer calculations, including estimated costs for large
business manufacturers.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3   Estimated Impact on Small Business
Trailer Manufacturers Based on Annual Revenue

 	Number of Companies	Fraction of Industry

Businesses with <1% impact	129	88%

Businesses with >1% impact	15	10%

Businesses with >3% impact	3	2%

Attachment:  MemoAttachment_SBREFA_TrailerImpact_Calculations.xlsx

Small Business Economic Burden Calculations for Trailer SISNOSE
Analysis, Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES   3