[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76158-76160]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30978]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68469; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 140 of
the NYSE MKT LLC Company Guide To Introduce an Initial Application Fee

December 19, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 6, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 140 of its Company Guide to
introduce an Initial Application Fee. The Exchange proposes to
immediately reflect the proposed changes in the Company Guide, but not
to implement the proposed changes until January 1, 2013. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 140 of its Company Guide to
introduce an Initial Application Fee. The Exchange proposes to
immediately reflect the proposed changes in the Company Guide, but not
to implement the proposed changes until January 1, 2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange has proposed changes to the Company Guide, as
reflected in the Exhibit 5 attached hereto, in a manner that would
permit readers of the Company Guide to identify the changes that
would be implemented on January 1, 2013. The Commission notes that
the Exhibit 5 referenced in the previous sentence is attached to the
filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to introduce an Initial Application Fee of
$5,000 within Section 140 of the Company Guide, which would be
effective January 1, 2013. An issuer would be required to pay an
Initial Application Fee if it applied to list shares of common or
preferred stock or common stock equivalents on the Exchange, including
securities issued by non-U.S. companies, except that an issuer:

    (i) Applying to transfer from a national securities exchange to
list exclusively on the Exchange; or
    (ii) Applying to list on the Exchange that is already listed on any
other national securities exchange

would not be required to pay an Initial Application Fee in connection
with its application for such listing or dual listing. Accordingly,
issuers for which the Initial Application Fee waivers would be
applicable would generally be the same as the issuers for which the
Original Listing Fees would be waived, as provided in Section 140 of
the Company Guide.\4\ The Initial Application Fee would be non-
refundable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section 140 of the Company Guide. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 68117 (October 26, 2012), 77 FR 66207
(November 2, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-51), and 59560 (March 11, 2009),
74 FR 11392 (March 17, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-02). The Initial
Application Fee would only apply with respect to the listing of
common or preferred stock or common stock equivalents. Original
Listing Fees are not limited in this respect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with Section 201 of the Company Guide, an issuer
applying to list an equity security on the Exchange is subject to a
preliminary confidential review by NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSER'') in
which NYSER determines the issuer's qualification for listing. If NYSER
determines in connection with this preliminary confidential review that
the issuer is qualified for listing, the issuer is informed that it has
been cleared as eligible to list and that the Exchange will accept a
formal Original Listing Application from the Issuer. It is the
Exchange's practice to notify the issuer of its eligibility clearance
and the conditions to its listing by means of a letter (the ``pre-
clearance'' letter).
    For an issuer subject to the Initial Application Fee, its payment
would be a prior condition to eligibility clearance being granted. As a
practical matter, the Exchange anticipates that an issuer would pay the
Initial Application Fee after NYSER has completed its preliminary
confidential review and has determined that the issuer is eligible to
submit a formal Original Listing Application, but before the ``pre-
clearance'' letter has been issued. Typically, the Exchange is in
contact with an issuer prior to the issuance of a ``pre-clearance''
letter and provides oral confirmation of the issuer's eligibility
clearance prior to the issuance of the ``pre-clearance'' letter.
    The Initial Application Fee would be applied towards the applicable
Original Listing Fees for an issuer that lists common or preferred
stock or common stock equivalents on the Exchange. If an issuer paid an
Initial Application Fee in connection with the application to list
common or preferred stock or common stock equivalents but did not
immediately list such security, the Issuer would not be required to pay
a subsequent Initial Application Fee if it later listed such security
so long as (i) the issuer had a registration statement regarding such
security on file with the Commission, or, (ii) if the issuer withdrew
its registration statement, the issuer refiled a registration statement
regarding such security within 12 months of the date of such
withdrawal. The Exchange is proposing the Initial Application Fee
because it would allow the Exchange to recover, in part, the costs
associated with processing and evaluating an issuer's application,
irrespective of whether the relevant issuance qualifies for listing or
whether such issuer decides to list on the Exchange. In addition, the
Initial Application Fee would provide a disincentive for impractical
applications by issuers. The proposed change is not otherwise intended
to address any other matter, and the Exchange is not aware of any
significant problem that issuers would have in complying with the
proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, because it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Initial Application Fee of
$5,000 is reasonable because it would allow the Exchange to recover, in
part, the costs associated with processing and evaluating an issuer's
application, irrespective of whether the relevant issuance qualifies
for listing or whether such issuer decides to list on the Exchange. In
this regard, the Exchange believes that the Initial Application Fee of
$5,000 is reasonably related to the amount of time, resources and cost
associated with the Exchange's review of an initial application for
listing common or preferred stock or common stock equivalents,
including securities issued by non-U.S. companies.\7\ Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that the Initial Application Fee is reasonable
because it would provide a disincentive for impractical applications by
issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that NASDAQ charges a non-refundable
$5,000 application fee to issuers on The NASDAQ Capital Market. See
NASDAQ Rule 5920. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59663
(March 31, 2009), 74 FR 15552 (April 6, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-018).
NASDAQ also charges a non-refundable $25,000 application fee to
issuers on The NASDAQ Global Market. See NASDAQ Rule 5910. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61669 (March 5, 2010), 75 FR
11958 (March 12, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-081).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the Initial Application Fee is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it would be charged to all
issuers that apply for listing common or preferred stock or common
stock equivalents on the Exchange, except, as proposed, those issuers
that qualify for a waiver. In this regard, the Exchange believes that
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge an Initial
Application Fee to issuers that apply to list common or preferred stock
or common stock equivalents on the Exchange, but not to issuers of
other types of securities. Specifically, while the Exchange conducts a
comprehensive and thorough review of every listing application it
receives, regardless of security type or issuer, the Exchange believes
that its costs associated with processing and evaluating an issuer's
application to list common or preferred stock or common stock
equivalents on the Exchange are generally significantly higher than the
costs associated with other types of securities, such that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge the Initial
Application Fee only to issuers of common or preferred stock or common
stock equivalents. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the review
that is required to be performed with respect to an issuer of common or
preferred stock or common stock equivalents is more extensive than that
required for the review of, for example, an issuer of a closed-end
fund.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to provide a
waiver of the Initial Application Fee to an issuer applying to transfer
from a national securities exchange to list exclusively on the Exchange
or applying to list on the Exchange that is already listed on any other
national securities exchange because the issuer would have already paid
a listing fee and may have already paid an application fee to the other
exchange for the initial application to list on that market.\8\
Accordingly, it is

reasonable to not charge the Initial Application Fee so as to avoid
double-charging issuers for the listing of their shares of common or
preferred stock or common stock equivalents. It is also equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to waive the Initial Application Fee
because all such issuers would be eligible for the waiver of the
Initial Application Fee. It is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because such issuers would be under no obligation to
transfer their listing to the Exchange or dually list on the Exchange
and would be disincentivized to do so if they were subject to the
Initial Application Fee. In this regard, the waiver would contribute to
providing issuers with the ability to choose the listing market that
best suits their needs and that is the ideal market for listing their
shares of common or preferred stock or common stock equivalents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Id. [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the Exchange believes that instances of the Initial
Application Fee waiver being granted to issuers that apply to list on
the Exchange will be relatively rare. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not anticipate that it will experience any meaningful diminution in
revenue as a result of the proposed waiver and therefore does not
believe that the proposed waiver would in any way negatively affect its
ability to continue to adequately fund its regulatory program or the
services that the Exchange provides to issuers.

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4\10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the NYSE MKT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-70. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-70 and should
be submitted on or before January 16, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30978 Filed 12-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26976-26978]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11425]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1193]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed
rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed
regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream
and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs
are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is
required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in
order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before August 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1193, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500
C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  *Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) +Elevation in
                                                                  feet (NAVD) Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced   ground [caret]Elevation    Communities affected
                                            elevation **            in meters (MSL)

                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                St. Clair County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coosa River.........................  At the Fishing Creek            None         +477  Town of Ragland, Town
                                       confluence.                                        of Riverside.
                                      Approximately 5.5 miles         None         +486  .......................
                                       downstream of Neely
                                       Henry Dam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

Town of Ragland

Maps are available for inspection at 220 Fredia Street, Suite 102, Ragland, AL 35131.
Town of Riverside

Maps are available for inspection at 379 Depot Street, Riverside, AL 35135.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Cass County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Winnebago......................  Entire shoreline.......         +922         +923  City of Lake Winnebago.
Unnamed Tributary to Lumpkins Fork    From approximately 275          None         +962  City of Raymore.
 (backwater effects from Lumpkins      feet upstream of the
 Fork).                                Lumpkins Fork
                                       confluence to
                                       approximately 850 feet
                                       upstream of the
                                       Lumpkins Fork
                                       confluence.
Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek       From approximately 50           None         +893  Village of Loch Lloyd.
 (backwater effects from Mill Creek).  feet upstream of the
                                       Mill Creek confluence
                                       to approximately 850
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       Mill Creek confluence.
Unnamed Tributary to Poney Creek      From approximately              None         +845  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Poney         1,300 feet upstream of                             Cass County
 Creek).                               the Poney Creek
                                       confluence to
                                       approximately 1.0 mile
                                       upstream of the Poney
                                       Creek confluence.
Unnamed Tributary to South Grand      From approximately              None         +849  Unincorporated Areas of
 River (backwater effects from South   1,850 feet upstream of                             Cass County.
 Grand River).                         South Lake Annette
                                       Road to approximately
                                       0.49 mile upstream of
                                       South Lake Annette
                                       Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Lake Winnebago

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 10 East Winnebago Drive, Lake Winnebago, MO 64034.

                                       Unincorporated Areas of Cass County

Maps are available for inspection at Cass County Courthouse, 102 East Wall Street, Harrisonville, MO 64701.

Village of Loch Loyd

Maps are available for inspection at the Loch Lloyd Trustee's Office, 16750 Country Club Drive, Loch Lloyd, MO
 64012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Dauphin County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahantango Creek....................  Approximately 1.88              None         +434  Township of Mifflin.
                                       miles upstream of
                                       Malta Road.
                                      Approximately 0.38 mile         None         +470  .......................
                                       downstream of Market
                                       Street.
Rattling Creek......................  Approximately 185 feet          None         +762  Township of Jackson.
                                       upstream of Glen Park
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 630 feet          None         +768  .......................
                                       upstream of Glen Park
                                       Road.
Wiconisco Creek (Upper Reach).......  Approximately 1.26              None         +603  Township of Washington.
                                       miles downstream of
                                       the Rattling Creek
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 1.11              None         +606
                                       miles downstream of
                                       the Rattling Creek
                                       confluence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

Township of Jackson

Maps are available for inspection at the Jackson Township Building, 450 Bastion Road, Halifax, PA 17032.
Township of Mifflin

Maps are available for inspection at the Mifflin Township Building, 3843 Shippen Dam Road, Millersburg, PA
 17061.
Township of Washington

Maps are available for inspection at the Washington Township Municipal Building, 185 Manors Road,
 Elizabethville, PA 17023.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: April 28, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-11425 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 110)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32673-32676]
[DOCID:fr09jn10-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0409; FRL-9159-5]

Finding of Failure To Submit Section 110 State Implementation
Plans for Interstate Transport for the 2006 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making a finding that certain states have failed to
submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to satisfy the attainment and
maintenance interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with respect to the 2006 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (24-hour
PM2.5). Pursuant to the CAA, states are required to submit
SIPs that satisfy the requirements of the CAA related to interstate
transport of pollution. This document addresses two elements of that
requirement. A state must address its significant contribution to
nonattainment and its interference with maintenance of a NAAQS in any
neighboring state. The CAA requires that states submit SIPs to meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA within 3 years after the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, or within such shorter period
as EPA may provide. On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule
establishing new standards for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. At
present, 29 states or territories have not yet submitted complete SIPs
to satisfy the section 110(a) nonattainment and maintenance transport
requirements. Through this action, EPA is making a finding of failure
to submit these SIPs which creates a 2-year deadline for the
promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA unless,
prior to that deadline, a state makes a submission to meet these two
requirements of the CAA and EPA approves such submission.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning this
final rule should be addressed to Ms. Gobeail McKinley, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Geographic Strategies Group, Mail Code
C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For questions related to a specific state,
please contact the appropriate regional office:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Regional offices                          States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA    Puerto Rico and the U.S.
 Region II, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New       Virgin Islands.
 York, NY 10007-1866.
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,        Maryland, Pennsylvania,
 Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30), Air    Virginia, West Virginia,
 Protection Division, U.S. Environmental        and the District of
 Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch       Columbia.
 Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2023.
Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA   Illinois, Michigan,
 Region V, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago,     Minnesota, and
 IL 60604.                                      Wisconsin.
Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section,    Louisiana and Oklahoma.
 EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
 75202.
Josh Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA     Iowa and Nebraska.
 Region VII, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
 City, Kansas 66101-2907,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Monica Morales, Leader, Air Quality Planning   Colorado, Montana, North
 Unit, EPA Region VIII, U.S. EPA Region VIII,   Dakota, South Dakota,
 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.    Utah, and Wyoming.
Lisa Hanf, Chief, Air Planning Office, EPA     Hawaii, American Samoa,
 Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San            the Commonwealth of the
 Francisco, CA 94105.                           Northern Mariana
                                                Islands, and Guam.
Michael McGown, Manager, State and Tribal Air  Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
 Programs, EPA Region X, Office of Air,         and Washington.
 Waste, and Toxics, Mail Code AWT-107, 1200
 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. This Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA)
    B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    G. Executive Order 13175
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act
    M. Judicial Review

I. Background

    On October 17, 2006, EPA published a final rule revising the 24-
hour standard for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from 65
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit revised SIPs that
provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new
or revised standard within 3 years after promulgation of such standard,
or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four elements that revised SIPs must address.
This findings notice addresses the first two elements which require
each state to submit SIPs which contain adequate provisions to prohibit
air pollution within the state that (1) contributes significantly to
another state's nonattainment of the NAAQS; or (2) interferes with
another state's maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) imposes the
obligation upon states to make a SIP submission for a new or revised
NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the
facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools
available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new
or revised NAAQS necessarily affects the content of the submission.
    States were required to have submitted complete SIPs that addressed

the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement related to interstate
transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by September 21,
2009. At present, 29 states and territories have not made a SIP
submittal that addresses the attainment and maintenance aspects of this
requirement. This includes the following states or territories: Alaska,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. EPA is making a finding of failure to submit
SIPs for these two transport requirements for all these states and
territories. It should be noted that a number of other states initially
submitted SIP revisions to address this requirement. EPA will review
and make a separate determination for those SIPs.
    This finding establishes a 2-year deadline for promulgation by EPA
of a FIP, in accordance with section 110(c)(1), for any state that
either does not submit or EPA can not approve a SIP as meeting the
attainment and maintenance requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This action does not
result in sanctions pursuant to section 179 because this finding of
failure to submit does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment
areas, or to a SIP Call pursuant to section 110(k)(5).

II. This Action

    By this action, EPA is making the finding that states have failed
to submit complete SIPs to address the attainment and maintenance
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the revised
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This finding creates a 2-year
deadline for the promulgation of a FIP by EPA for a particular state or
territory, unless that state or territory submits a SIP to satisfy
these section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements, and EPA approves such
submission prior to that deadline.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

    This is a final EPA action, which is subject to notice-and-comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b). However, EPA invokes, consistent with past practice (for
example, 61 FR 36294), the good cause exception pursuant to APA, 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Notice and comment are unnecessary because no
significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to
submit SIPs or elements of SIPs required by the CAA, where states have
made no submissions to meet the requirement by the statutory deadline.

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under the EO.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action relates to the
requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section
110(a)(1) that implements the CAA requirements for the revised 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that
states submit SIPs that implement, maintain, and enforce a new or
revised NAAQS which satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or shorter period as
EPA may provide. The present final action does not establish any new
information collection requirement apart from that required by law.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other
statute unless the EPA certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purpose of assessing the impacts of this final action on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is a small industry entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR, part 121); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for profit
enterprise which independently owned and operated is not dominate in
its field.
    Courts have interpreted the RFA to require a regulatory flexibility
analysis only when small entities will be subject to the requirements
of the rule. See, Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 668-69 (DC Cir.,
2000), cert. den., 532 U.S. 903 (2001). This rule would not establish
requirements applicable to small entities. Instead, it would require
states to develop, adopt, and submit SIPs to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and would leave to the states the task of
determining how to meet those requirements, including which entities to
regulate. Moreover, because affected states would have discretion to
choose the sources to regulate and how much emissions reductions each
selected source would have to achieve, EPA could not predict the effect
of the rule on small entities. After considering the economic impacts
of this final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In addition, although the action is subject to the
Administrative Procedures Act, the Agency has invoked the ``good
cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b); therefore, it is not subject
to the notice and comment requirement.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly
set forth by the Congress in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) without the
exercise of any policy discretion by EPA.
    This action does not create any additional requirements beyond
those of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (71 FR 61144, October
17, 2006). Therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. This rule responds to
the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that
states submit SIPs that implement, maintain, and enforce a new or
revised NAAQS within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or
shorter period as EPA may provide. This action does not impose any
requirements beyond those specified in the Act.
    Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme whereby states
take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS. This action will
not modify the relationship of the states and EPA for purposes of
developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
responds to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs to
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
that states submit SIPs that implement, maintain, and enforce a new or
revised NAAQS which satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or shorter period as
EPA may provide. The CAA provides for states and tribes to develop
plans to regulate emissions of air pollutants within their
jurisdictions. The regulations clarify the statutory obligations of
states and tribes that develop plans to implement this rule. The Tribal
Authority Rule (TAR) gives tribes the opportunity to develop and
implement CAA programs, but it leaves to the discretion of the tribe
whether to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate
elements of a program, the tribe will adopt.
    This action does not have tribal implications as defined by
Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, because no tribe has implemented an air
quality management program related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS at this time. Furthermore, this action does not affect the
relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the
federal government and Indian tribes. The CAA and the TAR establish the
relationship of the federal government and Tribes in developing plans
to attain the NAAQS, and this action does nothing to modify that
relationship. Because this action does not have tribal implications,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. Nonetheless, we have evaluated the environmental
health or safety effects of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on
children. The results of this risk assessment are contained in the
final rule for 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (71 FR 61144, October 17,
2006).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this final action. This action responds to the requirement
in the CAA for states to submit SIPs to satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that
states submit SIPs that implement, maintain, and enforce a new or
revised NAAQS which satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or shorter period as
EPA may provide. EPA is merely determining whether states have complied
with this statutory requirement.

L. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of July 9,
2010. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the action in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 808(2).

M. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This
section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the
EPA action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated,
or

final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action
is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such
action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based
on such a determination.''
    This action making a finding of failure to submit SIPs related to
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning
of section 307(b)(1).
    For the same reasons, the Administrator also is determining that
the requirements related to these finding of failure to submit SIPs
related to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is of nationwide
scope and effect for the purposes of section 307(b)(1). This is
particularly appropriate because in the report on the 1977 Amendments
that revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the
Administrator's determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope
or effect'' would be appropriate for any action that has ``scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit.'' H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323,
324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect
of this rulemaking extends to numerous judicial circuits since the
findings of failure to submit SIPs apply to all areas of the country.
In these circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history
call for the Administrator to find the rule to be of ``nationwide scope
or effect'' and for venue to be in the District of Columbia Circuit.
    Thus, any petitions for review of this action related to a findings
of failure to submit SIPs related to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA must be filed in the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final
action is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 28, 2010.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010-13457 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69186-69187]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Release From Federal Grant Assurance Obligations for
Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Reno, Nevada

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and
invites public comment on the application for a release of 23,974
square feet (approximately .55 acres) of airport property at Reno-Tahoe
International Airport, Reno, Nevada from all conditions contained in
the Grant Assurances since the parcel of land is not needed for airport
purposes. The property consists of narrow strip of land approximately
25 feet wide by 850 feet long. The property is located approximately
2,500 feet east of the departure end of Reno-Tahoe Airport Runway 7/25.
The property is separated from the airport operations area to the west
by a public road and several non-aeronautical leaseholds and parking
lots. The east side of the property is adjacent to East McCarran
Boulevard. The Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority (RTAA) and the Nevada
Department of Transportation propose to use the land to widen East
McCarran Boulevard, a major arterial road that serves the Reno/Sparks
Communities. The widening of the road represents a compatible land use
that will not interfere with the airport or its operation. The interest
of civil aviation continues to be served by the release. The property
will be sold at an appraised fair market value to the State of Nevada,
Department of Transportation and the proceeds deposited in the airport
account.

DATES: Comments must be received on the proposed land release request
from federal obligations on or before December 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on the request may be mailed
or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mike N. Williams,
Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Phoenix Airports District
Office, Federal Register Comment, 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1025,
10th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. In addition, one copy of the
comment submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered Ms. Laurie
Weeks, Senior Manager of Properties, Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority, 2001
E. Plumb Lane, Reno, Nevada, 89502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus
property conveyance deeds or grant agreements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority (RTAA) of Washoe County, the owner
of the Reno-Tahoe International Airport, requested a release from grant
assurance obligations for approximately 23,974 square feet of airport
land for sale. The property was acquired as separate parcels with
federal funding under the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP), Grant
No. 6-32-0017-12, and the Airport Improvement Program, Grant No. 3-32-
0017-01 and Grant No. 3-32-0017-04 for noise compatibility and approach
protection.
    Due to its location and current condition, the property has not
been used for aeronautical purposes. The land is currently improved
with landscaping only. The landscaping improvements include shrubs,
trees, rock ground cover and drip-irrigation. The land is not served by
domestic utilities. The land is currently zoned for industrial and
commercial uses. The subject land is part of a larger parcel which was
leased by the RTAA and developed with industrial/warehouse facilities
in 2004. The Nevada Department of Transportation requires the strip of
land to accommodate the widening of East McCarran Boulevard, a major
arterial roadway in Reno and Sparks, as part of the East McCarran
Boulevard Widening Project. Because of the narrow width of the property
and adjacency to the existing roadway, the land is not suitable for
future airport development. The release and sale of the land will not
negatively impact airport operations.
    The FAA has determined the proposed release of the property Grant
Assurances is categorically excluded from detailed evaluation in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the
proposed property is located within the 100-year floodplain of the
Truckee River. Therefore, the FAA evaluated the proposed release from
Grant Assurances in accordance with Executive Order 11988 Floodplain
Management, and Department of Transportation Order 5650.2 Floodplain
Management and Protection. There is no practicable alternative to
constructing the East McCarran Boulevard Widening Project--Phase II in
the proposed location, which is in the 100-year floodplain, because the
100-year floodplain extends throughout the project vicinity, and East
McCarran Boulevard is a major existing road.
    The construction of the East McCarran Boulevard Widening Project--
Phase II project after release from Grant Assurances and subsequent
conveyance to the Nevada Department of Transportation would not
adversely affect beneficial floodplain values such as natural
moderation of floodwaters, water quality maintenance, groundwater
recharge, fish or wildlife habitat, or any other floodplain value. The
existing property consists of artificial landscaping and parking lots
which do not possess any beneficial floodplain values and the project
is designed so as not to change the water storage capacity of the
existing floodplain. As discussed in a Truckee River Flood Management
Authority letter of July 11, 2014 to the City of Reno, while the
property is within the 100-year floodplain, as part of the East
McCarran Boulevard Widening Project--Phase II, the Nevada Department of
Transportation intends to provide additional flood water storage
capacity at a volumetric ratio of 2:1 to compensate for required
project fill associated with the widening project. As part of the FAA's
approval of the release of the property from Grant Assurances, the FAA
will require that the RTAA condition its sale of the property to the
Nevada Department of Transportation with the condition that the
Department will implement the project as described in the Truckee River
Flood Management Authority letter of July 11, 2014 to the City of Reno,
to provide additional flood water storage capacity at a volumetric

ratio of 2:1 to compensate for required project fill associated with
the East McCarran Boulevard Phase II widening project.
    The sale price will be based on an appraised market value and the
sale proceeds will be deposited in the airport account to be solely
expended for the capital and operating costs of the Reno-Tahoe
International Airport. The Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Nevada
will be justly compensated, thereby serving the interests of civil
aviation.

    Issued in Phoenix, Arizona, on November 14, 2014.
Mike N. Williams,
Manager, Phoenix Airports District Office, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-27559 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


August 11, 2003 By E Mail and By First Class Mail J. Wick Havens, Chief Air Resource Management Division Bureau of Air Quality P. O. Box 8468 Harrisburg, PA 17105 8468 Re: Proposal for 8 Hour Ozone Designations Dear Mr. Havens:

By notice published on July 5, 2003, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection sought public input on " Proposed 8 Hour Ozone Attainment/ Nonattainment Designation Recommendations" ( 33 Pa. B. 3183). Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future ( PennFuture), a conservation organization dedicated to protecting Pennsylvania's air, land, and water, hereby submits comments on this DEP proposal.

1. Under the federal Clean Air Act, governors shall submit to EPA a list of all areas in the state, designating as " nonattainment" any area that does not meet ( or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. 42 U. S. C. § 7407( d)( 1)( A)( i). The definition of nonattainment has two components: areas that do not meet federal standards and areas that contribute to air quality in nearby areas that do not meet the standard.

DEP's proposal recommends designations of nonattainment for 33 counties that do not themselves meet 8 hour ozone ambient air quality standards ( Table I, List of Proposed Designations). However, DEP provides no recommendations or even analysis of the second component of the nonattainment definition, areas that contribute to nonattainment in these 33 counties or elsewhere.

This omission has important consequences, namely, the elimination of counties in Pennsylvania from consideration for designation as nonattainment under the standards of the Clean Air Act. Such a designation, if appropriate, would support control measures in these counties to reduce their contribution to downwind nonattainment and promote downwind air quality.

DEP must revise its proposal to include an analysis of nonattainment areas that contribute to ambient air quality in downwind areas that do not meet national air standards. 2 2. DEP's proposal identifies 30 of 37 Pennsylvania counties without monitoring data as in attainment of the 8 hour ozone standard. However, the absence of data on air quality does not provide a basis for determining that a county is in attainment of clean air standards. In fact, the Clean Air Act creates a separate category for areas that are " unclassifiable"   that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting national standards   separate from " attainment" areas.

DEP provides no evidence or analysis to support its blanket designation of these counties as in attainment. However, further investigation of air quality in these counties could lead to more accurate designations. Several tools are available to DEP when evaluating air quality in nonmonitored areas:

A. Factors suggested by EPA for consideration by Tribes in EPA's " Boundary Guidance", 1 particularly for areas throughout Indian country that may not have adequate or any air quality ozone monitors: geographic location of the land, proximity to the nearest Consolidated/ Metropolitan Statistical Area, prevailing meteorology, location of nearby ozone monitors, available ozone air quality data, and location of nearby emission sources both inside and outside of such areas.

B. Factors suggested by EPA's Boundary Guidance ( p. 4) for use in evaluating the boundaries of nonattainment areas based on C/ MSAs, some of which would also be useful in designating the attainment status of counties or areas further afield from C/ MSAs.

C. The spatial interpolation of air quality data, which EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is now evaluating. See, e. g., EPA Office of the Inspector General, " Consistency and Transparency in Determination of EPA's Anticipated Ozone Designations", Report No. 2002 S 00016 at 23 ( August 15, 2002).

In sum, DEP has presented no basis for its recommendation that 30 counties with no monitoring data should be designated as " attainment" for 8 hour ozone and must reconsider this recommendation based on available information about air quality and other relevant factors.

3. In New Jersey's recommendations on 8 hour ozone designation to EPA, Gov. James McGreevey stated that Ocean County, New Jersey belonged in the Philadelphia nonattainment area because it is " impacted by contributing emissions from that area" even though it is part of the New York CMSA ( letter of June 24, 2003, p. 2). On this subject, Pennsylvania DEP states:

Ocean County, New Jersey, which is part of the NYC MSA, has recently measured some of the highest 8 hour ozone values in the Northeast over the last several years. Pennsylvania believes it is more appropriate for this 1 John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. EPA, " Boundary Guidance on Air Quality Designations for the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards," March 28, 2000, p. 5. 3 county to remain part of the NYC area for planning purposes. Philadelphia's downwind contribution to Ocean County and the entire NYC area will need to be addressed in the attainment plans developed by all parties in conjunction with the Ozone Transport Commission.

Proposed 8 hour Ozone Recommendations, p. 7. New Jersey recommends that Ocean County become part of the Philadelphia area, while Pennsylvania recommends that it remain part of the New York City area.

From this conclusory exchange, it does not appear that either side has examined in detail the evidence that EPA will use to determine the appropriate nonattainment area for Ocean County. EPA has described the criteria for determining boundaries of nonattainment areas in its Boundary Guidance. Since EPA's decision regarding Ocean County may have significant consequences for air quality planning in the Philadelphia nonattainment area, DEP should apply the criteria of the Boundary Guidance to available evidence in preparing final recommendations to EPA regarding Ocean County.

Sincerely,

Charles McPhedran Senior Attorney


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 86 (Friday, May 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 21218]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-633-001.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): Spot Market Price Location Filing Amendment to be
effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/24/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170424-5237.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-668-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts--CIMA ss Agmts (36088, 36105) to be
effective 4/3/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/24/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170424-5157.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-669-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Flex Fuel Filing on 4-24-17 to be effective 5/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 04/24/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170424-5219.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-670-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: SNG Negotiated Rate Filing & Housekeeping Filing to
be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5071.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-671-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits tariff filing per 154.204:
Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate Service Agreement--Antero Name Change to
be effective 6/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5093.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-672-000.
    Applicants: East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: ECGS 2017 Operational Purchase & Sales.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5212.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-673-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Penalty Revenues pursuant to the FERC
Gas Tariff of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5251.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-674-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Interruptible Transportation Revenue
Sharing pursuant to the FERC Gas Tariff of Cameron Interstate Pipeline,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5252.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-675-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Transportation Imbalances and Cash-
out Activity pursuant to the FERC Gas Tariff of Cameron Interstate
Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5253.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-676-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Operational Imbalances and Cash-out
Activity pursuant to the FERC Gas Tariff of Cameron Interstate
Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5254.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-677-000.
    Applicants: Florida Southeast Connection, LLC.
    Description: Florida Southeast Connection, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.202: Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 5/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5279.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 08, 2017.

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

    Dated: April 26, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09117 Filed 5-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63489-63490]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22222]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0886]

Notice of Public Listening Session: Heavy Fuel Oil in the Arctic

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of public listening session.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Coast Guard will conduct a public listening
session in Washington, DC, on the topic of heavy fuel oil use by ships
in the Arctic. The purpose of this public listening session is for the
Coast Guard to gather information on issues relating to the use of
heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in the Arctic.

DATES: This public listening session will begin at 10:00 a.m., Eastern
Time and end at 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 27,
2016. This meeting is open to the public, either in person or by phone.
Seating is limited and the venue has security requirements, so an RSVP
is required to

assure that space is available, arrange for entry, and to receive
teleconference instructions. RSVPs for U.S. citizens are required by
September 21, and non-U.S. citizens must RSVP by September 19.

ADDRESSES: The public listening session will be held in Room W22-308 of
the United States Department of Transportation Headquarters building in
Washington, DC. The United States Department of Transportation
Headquarters building is located at 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, across from the Navy Yard Metro Station. Due to
security requirements, each visitor must RSVP in advance, and present a
valid government-issued photo identification (for example, a driver's
license or passport) in order to gain entrance to the building. Due to
limited seating and security requirements, an RSVP is required by
Wednesday, September 21, 2016 for U.S. citizens and by Monday,
September 19, 2016 for non-U.S. citizens. Contact the Coast Guard (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to RSVP and to facilitate the security
process related to building access, or to request reasonable
accommodation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about this
public listening session you may contact Mr. Wayne Lundy by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard is hosting a public
listening session on the use of heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in the
Arctic on September 27, 2016. The purpose of this public listening
session is for the Coast Guard to gather information on issues relating
to the use of heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in the Arctic. Please note
that there is no obligation to attend and that no specific regulatory
or other actions will be presented at this session. The agenda is as
follows:
    At the onset of the session, the Coast Guard will provide a brief
overview regarding the existing measures found in IMO Polar Code--
Resolution MSC.385(94), and in the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(STCW Code) addressing Polar Waters.
    Following the Coast Guard's introduction, the public is invited to
speak on items relating to the use of HFO by ships. Specifically, the
Coast Guard is interested in public viewpoints relating to: (1)
Environmental risks to Arctic waters posed by HFO use by ships; (2)
potential measures that could be taken to reduce those risks to Arctic
waters; and (3) the development, sustainment, and economics of
communities that would be directly affected by such measures,
particularly remote indigenous populations and business interests vital
to remote population centers.

Procedural

    This listening session is open to the public. Please note that the
public listening session venue has limited seating and security
requirements, and thus requires individuals wishing to attend in person
to RSVP by Wednesday, September 21, 2016 for U.S. citizens, and by
Monday, September 19, 2016 for non-U.S. citizens. There will be
audiovisual arrangements available for those interested in making brief
(15 minutes or less) presentations. Teleconference information will be
made available upon receipt of an RSVP. Additionally, written comments
will be accepted both at the listening session and via email. Those
interested in making presentations, submitting written comments, or
teleconferencing should contact Mr. Wayne Lundy by telephone at (202)
372-1379 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A final agenda
including a list of those making presentations will be distributed
prior to the meeting. The Coast Guard will consider all information
provided as public information.
    Please note that the Coast Guard will not be providing comments or
responding to information provided at the listening session.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Mr. Wayne Lundy at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>as soon as possible.

    Dated: September 12, 2016.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-22222 Filed 9-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50860-50862]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21693]

========================================================================
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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0624; Product Identifier 2013-NE-24-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-11-
06, which applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037D, PW2037M,
PW2040, PW2040D, PW2043, PW2143, PW2643, and F117-PW-100 turbofan
engine models. AD 2017-11-06 requires initial and repetitive on-wing
eddy current inspections (ECIs) of affected engines with certain
diffuser and high-pressure turbine (HPT) cases installed. AD 2017-11-06
also requires a fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI) of the diffuser
case rear flange and the HPT case front flange. Since we issued AD
2017-11-06, we learned of designated engineering representative (DER)-
approved diffuser case M-flange replacement repairs. This proposed AD
would require an on-wing ECI of all diffuser case M-flange replacement
repairs. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 26,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pratt &
Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; internet: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-
0624; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

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-2018-0624;
Product Identifier 2013-NE-24-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2017-11-06, Amendment 39-18905 (82 FR 26979, June 13,
2017), (``AD 2017-11-06''), for all PW PW2037, PW2037D, PW2037M,
PW2040, PW2040D, PW2043, PW2143, PW2643, and F117-PW-100 turbofan
engine models. AD 2017-11-06 requires initial and repetitive on-wing
ECIs of affected engines with certain diffuser and HPT cases installed.
AD 2017-11-06 also requires an FPI of the diffuser case rear flange and
the HPT case front flange. AD 2017-11-06 resulted from the manufacturer
determining through analysis that the inspections required by AD 2014-
05-32, which was prompted by a rupture of the diffuser case M-flange,
were not adequate to maintain safety for diffuser cases that
incorporate a wrought diffuser case M-flange. Also, repaired wrought
flanges cannot be distinguished from other wrought flanges or from non-
repaired flanges on diffuser cases installed on the affected engines.
We issued AD 2017-11-06 to add additional repetitive, on-wing ECIs.

Actions Since AD 2017-11-06 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2017-11-06, we learned of DER-approved diffuser
case M-flange replacement repairs. The language in AD 2017-11-06
requires additional on-wing ECIs for PW repairs; however, it does not
address DER-approved diffuser case M-flange replacement repairs. The
DER-approved diffuser case M-flange replacement repairs use the same
wrought material as PWs and therefore require the same additional on-
wing ECIs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW2000 72-763, Revision
No. 1, dated August 30, 2013. The SB describes procedures for a one-
time ECI inspection of the engine diffuser case. We also reviewed PW
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 4, dated
January 25, 2018. The ASB describes procedures for repetitive on-wing
ECIs of the engine diffuser case assembly. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course

of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2017-
11-06. This proposed AD would also require an on-wing ECI of all
diffuser case M-flange replacement repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 910 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-wing/module ECI Inspection....  8 work-hours x $85               $0  $680...............  $230,520 per
                                    per hour = $680.                                          inspection cycle.
FPI Inspection...................  3 work-hours x $85               20  $275 per inspection  $250,250 per
                                    per hour = $255.                     cycle.               inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 that the 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, 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.

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-11-06, Amendment 39-18905 (82 FR 26979, June 13, 2017), and adding
the following new AD:

Pratt & Whitney Division: Docket No. FAA-2018-0624; Product
Identifier 2013-NE-24-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 26,
2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-11-06, Amendment 39-18905 (82 FR 26979,
June 13, 2017).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037D,
PW2037M, PW2040, PW2040D, PW2043, PW2143, PW2643, and F117-PW-100
turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Turbine/
Turboprop Engine.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a rupture of the diffuser-to-high-
pressure turbine (HPT) case flange. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the diffuser-to-HPT case flange. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained diffuser-
to-HPT case flange release, damage to the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For diffuser case, part number (P/N) 1B7461, serial numbers
(S/Ns) DGGUAK1306 and DGGUAK1308, and HPT case, P/N 1B2440, S/N
DKLBCS1032:
    (i) Within 100 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, perform an eddy current inspection (ECI) of the diffuser case
and the HPT case M-flange in accordance with PW Service Bulletin
(SB) No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, dated August 30, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (2) For all diffuser and HPT cases, at the next piece-part
opportunity after the effective date of this AD and every piece-part
opportunity thereafter, perform a high sensitivity fluorescent-
penetrant inspection (FPI) of the entire diffuser case rear flange
(M-flange) and boltholes, and the entire HPT case forward flange (M-
flange) and boltholes.
    (3) For all diffuser cases installed on any affected engine
model except for F117-PW-100 turbofan engines, that have not

incorporated PW SB PW2000-72-364, have incorporated PW SB PW2000-72-
700, or have had an M-flange replacement, perform initial and
repetitive ECIs of the diffuser case M-flange as follows:
    (i) Perform an initial ECI in accordance with the ``Last Shop
Visit Activity'' column and before exceeding the maximum cycles
since the last shop visit activity in the ``Initial Inspection''
column of Table 1 of PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW2000 A72-
765, Revision No. 4, dated January 25, 2018, or within 1,000 cycles
from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Evaluate the inspection results and perform re-inspections
as necessary in accordance with Accomplishment Instructions, ``For
Engines Installed on the Aircraft,'' paragraph 5, or the
Accomplishment Instructions, ``For Engines Removed from the
Aircraft,'' paragraph 4, of PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No.
4, dated January 25, 2018, as applicable. If given a cycle range,
perform the subsequent inspections before exceeding the maximum
number of cycles.
    (iii) Inspect the diffuser case M-flange using, as applicable,
either the Accomplishment Instructions, ``For Engines Installed on
the Aircraft,'' paragraphs 3.I. through 3.J., or the Accomplishment
Instructions, ``For Engines Removed from the Aircraft,'' paragraphs
3.D. through 3.E., of PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 4,
dated January 25, 2018.

(h) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a ``piece-part opportunity'' is
defined as when the part is completely disassembled.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) You may take credit for the diffuser case and HPT case
inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (3) of this AD if you
performed:
    (i) an ECI of the diffuser case and the HPT case M-flange using
the Accomplishment Instructions of PW SB No. PW2000 72-763, Original
Issue, dated March 22, 2013, or
    (ii) a high sensitivity FPI of the diffuser case and the HPT
case at a piece-part opportunity after January 1, 2010.
    (2) You may take credit for only the diffuser case inspections
required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (3) of this AD if you performed an
ECI of the diffuser case M-flange using the Accomplishment
Instructions of PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 3, dated
December 19, 2017, or an earlier version.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your
request to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2017-11-06 (82 FR 26979, June 13,
2017) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this
AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT, 06118; phone: 860-565-
0140; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; internet: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 28, 2018.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21693 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P