[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16579-16580]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0293; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-18]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Salida, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Salida,
CO. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Harriet Alexander
Field. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and
management of IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) operations at Harriet
Alexander Field, Salida, CO.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-
0293; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-18, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2007-0293 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-18) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2007-0293 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-18''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at
Salida, CO. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV
(GPS) SIAP at Harriet Alexander Field. This action would enhance the
safety and management of IFR operations at Harriet Alexander Field,
Salida, CO.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Harriet Alexander
Field, Salida, CO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Salida, CO [New]

Harriet Alexander Field, CO
    (Lat. 38[deg]32'18'' N., long. 106[deg]02'55'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.5-mile radius of Harriet Alexander Field.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 17, 2008.
Kevin Nolan,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area.
 [FR Doc. E8-6317 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4125-4127]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0047; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-295-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 400) airplanes. The existing AD currently
requires revising the airworthiness limitations section of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of the maintenance
requirements manual (MRM) by incorporating procedures for repetitive
functional tests of the pilot input lever of the pitch feel simulator
(PFS) units. That AD also requires new repetitive functional tests of
the pilot input lever of the PFS unit, and corrective actions if
necessary; and after initiating the new tests, requires removal of the
existing procedures for the repetitive functional tests from the MRM.
This new action would require revised procedures for the functional
tests. This proposed AD results from a report that the shear pin
located in the input lever of two PFS units failed due to fatigue. We
are proposing this AD to prevent undetected failure of the shear pins
of both PFS units simultaneously, which could result in loss of pitch
feel forces and consequent reduced control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 25,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville,
Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0047;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-295-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD 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

    On March 21, 2006, we issued AD 2006-05-11 R1, amendment 39-14528
(71 FR 15323, March 28, 2006), for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 400) airplanes. That AD requires revising
the airworthiness limitations section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness of the maintenance requirements manual (MRM) by
incorporating procedures for repetitive functional tests of the pilot
input lever of the pitch feel simulator (PFS) units. That AD also
requires new repetitive functional tests of the pilot input lever of
the PFS unit, and corrective actions if necessary; and after initiating
the new tests, requires removal of the existing procedures for the
repetitive functional tests from the MRM. That AD resulted from a
report that the shear pin located in the input lever of two PFS units
failed due to fatigue. We issued that AD to prevent undetected failure
of the shear pin of both PFS units simultaneously, which could result
in loss of pitch feel forces and consequent reduced control of the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    AD 2006-05-11 R1 cited Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-
144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006, as the appropriate source of
service information for the functional tests and associated corrective
actions and reporting requirements. Since we issued that AD, Bombardier
has revised the service bulletin. Revision B, dated December 20, 2006,
revises the column check procedures by specifying ambient temperature
conditions for performing the check. Remaining actions are unchanged.
    Revision B of the service bulletin contains an additional
requirement. So we must supersede AD 2006-05-11 R1 to require the
revised procedures specified in Revision B of the service bulletin.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    These airplanes are manufactured in Canada and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings,
evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is
necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
    This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-05-11 R1 and retain its
requirements, but in accordance with revised procedures for the
functional tests.

Interim Action

    This is considered to be interim action. The inspection reports
that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain
better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the failures of
the shear pins of the PFS units, and eventually to develop final action
to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified,
we might consider further rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators
to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
             Action                Work hours    Average  labor           Cost per  airplane            registered                Fleet cost
                                                 rate  per hour                                          airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise MRM.....................               1             $80  $80................................             684  $54,720.
Functional tests...............               1             $80  $80, per test cycle................             684  $54,720, per test 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.

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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14528 (71 FR 15323, March 28, 2006) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Docket No. FAA-2008-0047;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-295-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February
25, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-05-11 R1.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 400) airplanes, certificated in any category,
serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 and subsequent.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that the shear pin located in
the input lever of two pitch feel simulator (PFS) units failed due
to fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent undetected failure of
the shear pins of both PFS units simultaneously, which could result
in loss of pitch feel forces and consequent reduced control of the
airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-05-11 R1

Revise Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) Section of Maintenance
Requirements Manual

    (f) For airplanes having serial numbers 7003 through 7990
inclusive: Within 14 days after February 13, 2004 (the effective
date of AD 2004-02-07, which was superseded by AD 2006-05-11 R1),
revise the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness of the maintenance requirements manual by
incorporating the functional check of the PFS pilot input lever,
Task R27-31-A024-01, as specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision
(TR) 2B-1784, dated October 24, 2003, to the CL-600-2B19 Canadair
Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual, Part 2, Appendix B,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' into the AWL section.

New Repetitive Functional Tests and Corrective Actions

    (g) Before the accumulation of 4,000 total flight hours, or
within 100 flight hours after March 27, 2006 (the effective date of
AD 2006-05-11 R1), whichever occurs later: Do a functional test of
the pilot input lever of the PFS units to determine if the lever is
disconnected, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated
February 14, 2006,

including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005, except as required
by paragraph (j) of this AD. Repeat the test at intervals not to
exceed 100 flight hours. Accomplishing the initial functional test
terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD and the
repetitive functional checks of the PFS pilot input lever, Task R27-
31-A024-01, as specified in the AWL section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness of CL-600-2B19 Canadair Regional Jet
Maintenance Requirements Manual.
    (h) If any lever is found to be disconnected during any
functional test required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006,
including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005, except as required
by paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (1) Before further flight, replace the defective PFS with a
serviceable PFS in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of the alert service bulletin; and
    (2) Within 30 days after removing the defective PFS, submit a
test report to the manufacturer in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin. Under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Previously Accomplished Actions

    (i) Actions done before March 27, 2006, in accordance with
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, including Appendix
A, dated September 15, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

New Service Bulletin for Functional Tests

    (j) As of the effective date of this AD, Bombardier Alert
Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision B, dated December 20, 2006,
including Appendix A, Revision A, dated December 20, 2006, must be
used for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Related Information

    (l) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-41, dated December
22, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 14, 2008.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-1167 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22783-22786]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0254; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-047-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Beechcraft Corporation (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon
Aircraft Company) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft Company) Model Hawker
800XP, 850XP, and 900XP airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
design review that revealed there were no instructions to apply sealant
to structural components in the fuel tank during the winglet
installation process. This proposed AD would require an inspection for
the presence of sealant on doubler plate edges, doubler plate rivets,
and adjacent skin in the fuel vent surge tanks; and corrective actions
if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct missing
sealant, which, during a lightning strike, could result in a potential
source of ignition in a fuel tank and consequent explosion or fire and
subsequent in-flight breakup of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2014.

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 proposed AD, contact
Beechcraft Corporation, TMDC, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, KS 67201-0085;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://pubs.beechcraft.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 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-2014-
0254; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Englert, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita
Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-
Continent Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316)
946-4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0254;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-047-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD 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 found during a design review that included the winglet kit that
there were no instructions to apply sealant to structural components in
the fuel tank during the winglet installation process. The sealant is
part of the lightning protection design for the fuel tanks. Missing
sealant, if not detected and corrected, could result in a potential
source of ignition in a fuel tank during a lightning strike and
consequent explosion or fire and subsequent in-flight breakup of the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 57-
4112, dated February 2013. The service information describes procedures
for inspecting for the presence of sealant on doubler plate edges,
doubler plate rivets, and adjacent skin in the top and bottom of the
left and right fuel vent surge tanks; and applying sealant if
necessary.

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 require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information identifies Model 800XP and 850XP airplanes
equipped with certain kits, but does not specify the serial numbers of
Model 800XP and 850XP airplanes that are eligible to have those kits
installed. We have listed those serial numbers in paragraph (g) of this
proposed AD.
    The service information refers only to an ``inspection'' to
determine the presence of sealant. We have determined that the
inspection should be described as a ``general visual inspection.'' We
have defined this type of inspection in paragraph (h) of this proposed
AD.
    The service information includes a note in the Accomplishment
Instructions to inform operators to contact Hawker Beechcraft ``should
any difficulty be encountered'' in accomplishing the service
information. We have clarified in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD
that any deviation from the instructions provided in the service
information must be approved as an alternative method of compliance
under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 50 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost           Product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  2 work-hours x $85     None.................            $170          $8,500
                                     per hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We
have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealant application.........................  36 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $32           $3,092
                                               $3,060.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held by Hawker
Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft Company): Docket No. FAA-
2014-0254; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-047-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 9, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate
previously held by Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft
Company) Model Hawker 800XP, 850XP, and 900XP airplanes,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a design review that revealed there were
no instructions to apply sealant to structural components in the
fuel tank during the winglet installation process. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct missing sealant, which, during a
lightning strike, could result in a potential source of ignition in
a fuel tank and consequent explosion or fire and subsequent in-
flight breakup of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD: Within 600 flight hours or 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general
visual inspection for the presence of sealant on doubler plate
edges, doubler plate rivets, and adjacent skin in the top and bottom
of the left and right fuel vent surge tanks, and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 57-
4112, dated February 2013, except as required by paragraph (i) of
this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate previously held by
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft Company) Model
Hawker 800XP airplanes, serial numbers 258324, 258326 through 258332
inclusive, 258334 through 258340 inclusive, 258342 through 258347
inclusive, 258349 through 258359 inclusive, 258361 through 258369
inclusive, 258371 through 258380 inclusive, 258382 through 258406
inclusive, 258408 through 258426 inclusive, 258428 through 258444
inclusive, 258446 through 258468 inclusive, 258470 through

258492 inclusive, 258494 through 258512 inclusive, 258514 through
258532 inclusive, 258534 through 258540 inclusive, 258542 through
258555 inclusive, 258557 through 258566 inclusive, 258278, 258541,
258556, 258567 through 258609 inclusive, 258611 through 258628
inclusive, 258630 through 258684 inclusive, 258686 through 258734
inclusive, 258736 through 258788 inclusive, 258795, 258802, 258821,
258825, 258829, 258834, 258840, and 258847; equipped with a kit
numbered 140-1701-1, 140-1702-1, 140-1703-1,140-1703-5, 140-1703-7,
or 140-1704-1 that was purchased from Hawker Beechcraft on or before
February 13, 2013.
    (2) Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate previously held by
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft Company) Model
Hawker 850XP airplanes having serial numbers 258789 through 258794
inclusive, 258796, 258798 through 258801 inclusive, 258803 through
258819 inclusive, 258822, 258823, 258826 through 258828 inclusive,
258830 through 258833 inclusive, 258835 through 258838 inclusive,
258841, 258844, 258845, 258848, 258852, 258855, 258856, 258858,
258859, 258861, 258872, 258874, 258876, 258891, 258893, 258895,
258900, 258901, 258904, 258907, 258909, 258912, 258915, 258921,
258959, 258961, 258963, 258977, 258980, 258982, and subsequent
serial numbers; equipped with a kit numbered 140-1701-1, 140-1702-1,
140-1703-1, 140-1703-5, 140-1703-7, or 140-1704-1 that was purchased
on or before February 13, 2013.
    (3) Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate previously held by
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft Company) Model
Hawker 900XP airplanes, having serial numbers HA-0156 and HA-0159.

(h) Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is a
visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or
assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This
level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless
otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual
access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of
inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such
as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may
require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands,
ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area
being checked.

(i) Exception to the Service Information

    A note in the Accomplishment Instructions of the Hawker
Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 57-4112, dated February
2013, instructs operators to contact Hawker Beechcraft if any
difficulty is encountered in accomplishing the service information.
However, this AD requires that any deviation from the instructions
provided in Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 57-4112,
dated February 2013, must be approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation

    For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no kit
having kit number 140-1701-1, 140-1702-1, 140-1703-1, 140-1703-5,
140-1703-7, or 140-1704-1 that was purchased before February 13,
2013, may be installed on any airplane unless the installation
includes sealant on doubler plate edges, doubler plate rivets, and
adjacent skin in the top and bottom of the left and right fuel vent
surge tanks, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of
Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 57-4112, dated
February 2013.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (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.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jeffrey Englert,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-
116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,
Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: (316)
946-4167; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Beechcraft Corporation, TMDC, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, KS 67201-0085;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://pubs.beechcraft.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 17, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-09311 Filed 4-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 200 (Thursday, October 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65203-65204]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0606; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-100]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Yakima, WA; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is correcting a
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on October 5, 2020.
The rule modified Class D and Class E airspace at Yakima Air Terminal/
McAllister Field Airport, Yakima, WA. However, the subject heading
incorrectly listed the location as ``Yakima, OR.'' This action corrects
the Final Rule subject heading to list the location as ``Yakima, WA.''

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 25, 2021. The Director of the
Federal

Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History
    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (85 FR
62573; October 5, 2020) for Docket FAA-2020-0606 modifying Class D and
Class E airspace at Yakima, WA. Subsequent to publication, the FAA
identified an error in the document's subject heading, which
incorrectly listed the airport location as ``Yakima, OR.'' This action
corrects that error.
    Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Amendment
of Class D and Class E Airspace; Yakima, WA, published in the Federal
Register of October 5, 2020 (85 FR 62573), FR Doc. 2020-21905, is
corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 62573, in the second column, the subject heading, is
corrected to read as follows: Amendment of Class D and Class E
Airspace; Yakima, WA

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 8, 2020.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-22743 Filed 10-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 9824]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03315]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88206; File No. SR-BOX-2019-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change in Connection With the Proposed Commencement of Operations of
Boston Security Token Exchange LLC as a Facility of the Exchange

February 13, 2020.
    On December 18, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change in connection
with the proposed commencement of operations of Boston Security Token
Exchange LLC (``BSTX'') as a facility of the Exchange. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 3, 2020.\3\ The Commission has received one comment letter on
the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87868 (December 30,
2019), 85 FR 345.
    \4\ See Letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, SIFMA, to
Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated January 13, 2020.
All comments on the proposed rule change are available on the
Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-box-2019-37/srbox201937.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is February 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission hereby is extending the 45-day time period for
Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds
that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to
take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the Commission designates April 2, 2020 as the
date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed
rule change (File No. SR-BOX-2019-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03315 Filed 2-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13497-13499]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04145]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0305; FRL-9783-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and
Other Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environmental (MDE) on
April 4, 2012. This revision defers until July 21, 2014 the application
of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting
requirements to biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources in the State of
Maryland. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0305. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment,
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 7, 2012 (77 FR 55171), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed
approval of a revision to the Maryland SIP which would defer until July
21, 2014 the application of PSD permitting requirements to biogenic
CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources in Maryland. The formal SIP revision (12-02) was
submitted by MDE on April 4, 2012. During the public comment period,
EPA received a request from a commenter to extend the comment period.
In response to that request, EPA re-opened the public comment period
for an additional 30 days under additional notice on November 16, 2012
(77 FR 68721).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    EPA incorporated the biomass deferral into the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) governing state programs and into the Federal PSD
program by amending the definition of ``subject to regulation'' under
40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 respectively. Maryland implements its PSD
program by incorporating section 52.21 by reference. This incorporation
references a date specific version of the CFR and is updated
periodically and submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP. In order
to adopt the Biomass Deferral, Maryland has revised COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>B(1) to incorporate the 2009 version of 40 CFR 52.21 ``as
amended by'' the Tailoring Rule and the Biomass

Deferral. Additionally, the definitions of ``PSD source'' and
``greenhouse gas'' at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> respectively
have been revised to incorporate the Biomass Deferral.
    Other specific requirements of Maryland's April 4, 2012 submittal
and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR
and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the
NPR, either during the initial comment period, or the additional 30-day
comment period.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maryland's April 4, 2012 SIP submittal as a
revision to the Maryland SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 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. 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 rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 29, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to the regulation of biogenic GHGs in
Maryland may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 8, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the second entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, and the entries for COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c)* * *

                 EPA-Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
        Code of Maryland                                    State                                explanation/
  administrative  regulations        Title/subject        effective      EPA approval date    citation at 40 CFR
       (COMAR)  citation                                    date                                   52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Definitions.........          3/5/12  2/28/13 [Insert page  Revised .01B(6-1)
                                                                        number where the      and .01B(37).
                                                                        document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  26.11.02 Permits, Approvals, and Registration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Definitions.........          3/5/12  2/28/13 [Insert page  Revised .01B(44)
                                                                        number where the      and .01C(1).
                                                                        document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        26.11.06 General Emissions Standards, Prohibitions, and Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Control of PSD                3/5/12  2/28/13.............  Revised .14B(1).
                                  Sources.                             [Insert page number
                                                                        where the document
                                                                        begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-04145 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3496-3497]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0179]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under the procedures established by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies
must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information,
including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved
collections. This document describes one collection of information for
which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2011-0129 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through

Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without changes to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Kang, Ph.D., Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative Task Order Manager, Office of Human-
Vehicle Performance Research (NVS-331), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Dr.
Kang's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:

Driver Monitoring of Inattention and Impairment Using Vehicle Equipment
(Phase 2)

    Type of Request--New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Number--NHTSA Form 1157.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--Two years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--NHTSA proposes to collect
information from the public as part of a multipart study to develop and
evaluate vehicle-based algorithms to detect and mitigate impairment and
inattention. Questions will be asked in conjunction with a pair of
simulator experiments to determine eligibility, and to provide details
about the individuals and their experiences in the simulator that are
necessary to explain the simulator data.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
healthcare and other economic costs associated with motor vehicle
crashes. In 2010, 899,000 police-reported crashes involved a distracted
driver. This number accounts for 17 percent of the total number of
police-reported crashes. Driver distraction is the diversion of
attention from activities critical for safe driving to a competing
activity. Examples of these tasks include talking on a cell phone,
reaching for an object, or using a digital music player. NHTSA
estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes each year are the result
of driver fatigue, but this estimate may be conservative. There are no
tests to accurately determine fatigue and it is a difficult driver
state to measure.
    In a continuing effort to reduce the adverse consequences of
impaired and inattentive driving, NHTSA in conjunction with the
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) is undertaking research to
develop and evaluate vehicle-based algorithms that will detect impaired
driving, e.g. driving while intoxicated, distracted, or drowsy. The
agency believes that use of vehicle-based, detection technologies could
help to significantly reduce the number of impaired driving crashes by
alerting drivers to stop driving or disengage with distracting
activities.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
Under this proposed effort, the Contractor will contact approximately
168 individuals for the phone-screening portion of the study. The
screening is roughly 10 minutes in length. It is estimated that 100 of
these individuals will be enrolled into the study to obtain the 72
completed data sets. The individuals contacted are persons in Eastern
Iowa who have volunteered to take part in a driving simulation study.
Businesses are ineligible for the sample and will not be contacted.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of Information--It is estimated that the
total respondent burden will be 203 hours. There are two experiments:
Track A and Track B. Individuals in Track A will have a burden of 30-45
minutes and individuals in Track B will have a burden of 150-180
minutes. Respondents who only complete the phone screening will have a
burden of 10 minutes. The respondents will not incur any reporting cost
from the information collection. The respondents also will not incur
any recordkeeping burden or recordkeeping cost from the information
collection.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

Joseph Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2013-00798 Filed 1-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


JANUARY 2003 BASELINE C 8 SAMPLING DUPONT FAYETTEVILLE WORKS FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA Date: March 2003 Project No.: 18983753.00037 CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP An Alliance between DuPont and URS Diamond Barley Mill Plaza, Building 27 Wilmington, Delaware 19805 January 2003 Baseline C 8 Sampling Fayetteville Scope. doc Mar. 6, 03 1 Wilmington, DE Introduction During the week of January 27th 2003, groundwater was sampled from four monitoring wells at the DuPont Fayetteville Works. In addition, a combined surface and wastewater sample was collected above Outfall 002. These samples were collected in order to establish baseline conditions at the facility during the initial activation of APFO ( C 8) production.

C 8 Sampling Prior to initiating sampling activities, well locations were field identified and sampling locations were selected based on site coverage and accessibility. Figure 1 ( attached) shows the locations of the four wells selected for sampling. Before sampling activities began, depth to water and depth to bottom were measured for each well to the nearest one hundredth of a foot.

Prior to sampling, monitoring wells were purged using low flow sampling methods where possible. The low flow bladder pump was gently lowered to approximately the middle of the screened interval in the well and the well was purged. During low flow purging, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, oxidation reduction potential and temperature were monitored approximately every three minutes using a flow through monitoring cell. Purging was considered complete when all field parameters stabilized ( variations in values were within 10 percent of each other for three consecutive readings three minutes apart). Once field parameters stabilized, groundwater was sampled directly from the end of the discharge tubing. Wells SMW 01, NAF 01 and MW 1S were sampled using this low flow sampling method.

Alternatively, if low flow purging was not practical due to field conditions ( i. e. too little water in the well), monitoring wells were evacuated using a disposable bailer. Well evacuation stopped when at least three volumes were evacuated and three consecutive readings of pH and specific conductance were stabilized to within ten percent. After evacuation and parameter stabilization, the groundwater was sampled directly from a disposable bailer. Well SMW 02 was sampled using this method.

The combined surface and wastewater sample was collected approximately ten feet upstream from Outfall 002, after the confluence of all plant discharges. The location of Outfall 002 is shown on Figure 1 ( attached). The water sample was collected by submerging the sample bottle into the water and then filling the bottle. All equipment used for sampling activities was pre cleaned or was dedicated as per the Groundwater Investigation Quality Assurance Project Plan For Washington Works Plant ( QAPP), dated January 2002. All samples were collected and handled in a manner described in the QAPP, including the sample collected above Outfall 002. January 2003 Baseline C 8 Sampling Fayetteville Scope. doc Mar. 6, 03 2 Wilmington, DE C 8 Results The C 8 results for the four wells and Outfall 002 are presented in Table 1 ( attached). This table provides the sample name and date of the sample, the depth to water and depth to bottom for each well, the measured C 8 result in ug/ l, and comments, if applicable. The groundwater from well NAF 01 is the only sample that had a detectable concentration of C 8. The concentration measured in this well was 0.0649 ug/ l. Samples from the other wells and the outfall had C 8 concentrations that were either below the practical quantification limit of 0.05 ug/ l ( NQ) or nondetectable ( less than 0.01 ug/ l; ND). Table 1 January 2003  Baseline C 8 Sampling DuPont Fayetteville Works Fayetteville, North Carolina Sample Name Date Depth to Water ( ft.) Depth to Bottom ( ft.) C 8( ug/ L) Comments SMW 01 1/ 27/ 2003 13.55 22.84 ND(< 0.01) shallow well installed 1/ 21/ 03 for C 8 sampling SMW 02 1/ 27/ 2003 14.79 17.12 ND(< 0.01) shallow well installed 1/ 21/ 03 for C 8 sampling, well bailed due to low water level NAF 01 1/ 27/ 2003 7.14 18.31 0.0649 MW 1S 1/ 28/ 2003 18.81 32.25 NQ(< 0.05) MW 1S 2 1/ 28/ 2003 18.81 32.25 NQ(< 0.05) duplicate sample Outfall 002 1/ 28/ 2003     NQ(< 0.05) water is very foamy, sample collected upstream of outfall sampling point but after confluence of all plant discharges 3/ 6/ 2003 Page 1 fayetteville. xls


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18751-18753]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0336]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox River, Oshkosh, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Tayco Street Bridge, mile 37.52, the Main Street Bridge,
mile 55.97, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 56.22, the Wisconsin Street
Bridge, mile 56.72, and the Congress Avenue Bridge, mile 58.01, all
over the Fox River near Oshkosh, Wisconsin. This proposed rule will
allow the bridges to operate remotely. We invite your comments on this
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0336 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist,
Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    On July 6, 2021, we published a temporary deviation in the Federal
Register (86 FR 35402) to test the effectiveness of the remote bridge
operations and to solicit public comments; public commenting closed on
November 1, 2021. The Main Street Bridge, mile 55.97, provides a
horizontal clearance of 89 feet and a vertical clearance 11 feet in the
closed position, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 56.22, provides a
horizontal clearance of 97 feet and a vertical clearance of 11 feet in
the closed position, the Wisconsin Street Bridge, mile 56.72, provides
a horizontal clearance of 75 feet and a vertical clearance of 12 feet
in the closed position, the Congress Avenue Bridge, mile 58.01,
provides a horizontal clearance of 75 feet and a vertical clearance of
13 feet in the closed position, and the Tayco Street Bridge provides a
horizontal clearance of 63 feet and a vertical clearance of 3 feet in
the closed position. All of these bridges are over the Fox River and
provide an unlimited clearance in the open position, and are governed
by the regulations found in 33 CFR 117.1087.
    WisDOT has tested the capabilities of the remote operating system
with live operators in the bridges and allowed the public to comment on
the bridge operations before this proposed rule was published.
    This proposed rule will not change the operation of the bridges.
WisDOT will provide weekly bridge opening data and approximate vehicle
and pedestrian crossings at the end of the comment period. If the
proposed rule is finalized, remote bridge operators will have the
ability to communicate by visual or audio (two-way radio, loudspeaker,
and telephone) means with vessels, including enough cameras to see
above and below the bridge, including night vision cameras to monitor
approaching river traffic in adverse weather conditions.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local Notice to Mariners when the comment period opens and how to
leave comments.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The remote operations of the bridges will not affect the operations
of the current regulations. During the test deviation, we received nine
comments. In addition to the responses to the comments below, WisDOT
took the opportunity to answer each comment, and we have added those
responses to the docket.
    Most of the commenters described increased wait times for a remote
bridge opening and indicated wait times were at least 30 minutes per
bridge. Most of these delays were the result of challenges associated
with training certain drawtenders on the new remote system. Moving
forward, said drawtenders will be retrained to prevent delays beyond
what users experience with live drawtenders. Further, WisDOT agreed
that on certain weekends and holidays, when vessel and vehicle traffic
will be the greatest, extra drawtenders will be provide to maintain a
reliable level of safety for the public. Despite the comments discussed
above, the data collected by WisDOT show that there were limited delays
to boaters.
    In response to the safety concern, there is audio and video
equipment to monitor the bridge, with cameras above and below the
bridge to provide sufficient visualization of the areas surrounding the
bridge. Further, we would like to note that from January to December
2020 there were five reported boating accidents while the bridges were
operated by independent drawtenders. Out of the five accidents, one
required advanced first aid. During the 2021 test deviation, there were
no reported boating accidents. The test deviation covered June 30 to
October 7, 2021, when the waterways are the busiest. During 2021,
during the period before and after the test deviation, no accidents
were reported.
    We did not address the incident of the bicyclist accident on the
Racine Street Bridge because it occurred during the July 4th
celebrations in 2018, on a bridge not included in the NPRM, and the
cause of the incident, according to police records, was the result of
human negligence and wholly unrelated to bridge operations.
    The Tayco Street Bridge, mile 37.52 was not included in the test
deviation because its remote operations were not discovered until after
the conclusion of the test deviation. WisDOT has been remotely
operating this bridge since 1984, after the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers abandoned the lock system

and the U.S. Coast Guard stopped regulating bridges as the waterway
could not engage in interstate commerce. Because the bridge has been
operated remotely for 37 years we find no reason to repeat the test
deviation to include this bridge for comments.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, as the
bridges will open normally.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0336 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being
available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous
paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related Material'' in the
Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online
docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all
comments received, but we will only post comments that address the
topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.1087 by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1087  Fox River.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) All drawbridges between mile 37.52 and 58.01, are authorized to
be operated remotely, and are required to operate and maintain a VHF-FM
Marine Radio.
* * * * *

M.J. Johnston,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-06803 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P