[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60597-60599]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-14-000]

Blue Mountain Midstream, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Blue Mountain Delivery Line
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Blue Mountain Delivery Line
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Blue
Mountain Midstream, LLC (Blue Mountain) in Grady County, Oklahoma. The
Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before January 16, 2018.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on November 9, 2017, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP18-14-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about

the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the
proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually
acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project,
that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore,
if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation
would be determined in accordance with state law.
    Blue Mountain provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow
these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP18-14-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Blue Mountain proposes to construct and operate two natural gas
pipelines totaling 9.57 miles and a metering and pigging facility in
Grady County, Oklahoma.\1\ The Blue Mountain Deliver Line would provide
about 225 million cubic feet of natural gas per day to markets in
Oklahoma and neighboring states. According to Blue Mountain, its
project would accommodate natural gas development in Grady County,
Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Blue Mountain Delivery Line Project would consist of the
following facilities:
     Two natural gas pipelines, the Enable Discharge Line #127
(Line 127) (4.4 miles) and Enable Discharge Line #128 (Line 128) (5.2
miles); and
     a metering and pigging facility.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 80.7
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipelines.
Following construction, Blue Mountain would maintain about 37.9 acres
for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining
acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     endangered and threatened species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the

project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with
the SHPO as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the
APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance
(examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage
yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project
will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the ``Document-less Intervention Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on
the Commission's website. Motions to intervene are more fully described
at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP18-
14). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: December 15, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27494 Filed 12-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 11205]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04662]

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

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: CP09-12-001.
    Applicants: Narragansett Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing of Information Supporting Maximum
Blanket Certificate Rate of the Narragansett Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 6/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130617-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-627-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--BBPC d/b/a
Great Eastern contract 791252 to be effective 3/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/24/16.
    Accession Number: 20160224-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-628-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: LA Storage 2016 Annual
Adjustment of Fuel Retainage Percentage Filing to be effective 3/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 2/24/16.
    Accession Number: 20160224-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-629-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Eff 4-1-2016
for J Aron contract 8940246 to be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160225-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-630-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Transco Annual Fuel Tracker to
be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160225-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/16.

    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 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: February 25, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04662 Filed 3-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


machines, IPR, cold storage warehouses, and ice skating rinks, no
change in business practice is required to meet the use conditions,
resulting in no adverse impact compared with the absence of this
proposed rule. The new use conditions for R-290 in stand-alone units
and self-contained commercial ice machines were requested by industry
and are consistent with the most recent, updated standard; these would
allow for greater consistency in business practices for different types
of equipment using the same refrigerant, as well as provide greater
flexibility in designing and manufacturing equipment. Equipment for R-
290 already manufactured prior to the effective date of a final rule
based on this proposal would not be required to be changed. Stand-alone
units and self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 have been
subject to similar use conditions, and thus the updated requirements
would result in no adverse impact compared with the absence of this
proposed rule. Thus, if the rule were finalized as proposed, it would
not impose new costs on small entities. We have therefore concluded
that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. EPA periodically updates tribal officials on air
regulations through the monthly meetings of the National Tribal Air
Association and will share information on this rulemaking through this
and other fora.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. While EPA has
not conducted a separate analysis of risks to infants and children
associated with this proposed rule, the rule does contain use
conditions that would reduce exposure risks to the general population,
with the reduction of exposure being most important to the most
sensitive individuals. This action's health and risk assessments are
contained in the comparisons of toxicity for the various substitutes,
as well as in the risk screens for the substitutes that are listed in
this proposed rule. The risk screens are in the docket for this
rulemaking. However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this
action.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. EPA uses and proposes to
incorporate by reference portions of the 2021 UL 60335-2-89, which
establishes requirements for the evaluation of commercial refrigeration
equipment and commercial ice machines and safe use of flammable
refrigerants, among other things. This standard is discussed in greater
detail in section II.H.1 of this preamble.
    The 2021 standard UL 60335-2-89, ``Household And Similar Electrical
Appliances--Safety--Part 2-89: Particular Requirements for Commercial
Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote
Refrigerant Unit or Motor Compressor,'' 2nd edition, October 27, 2021,
is available at: https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL60335-2-89_2_S_20211027, and may be
purchased by mail at: COMM 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL
60106; Email: [email protected]; Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in
the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial 1-415-352-2178); internet
address: https://ulstandards.ul.com or https://www.shopulstandards.com.
The cost of the 2021 standard UL 60335-2-89 is $519 for an electronic
copy and $649 for a hard copy. UL also offers a subscription service to
the Standards Certification Customer Library that allows unlimited
access to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining
this standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment
manufacturers and purchase is not necessary for those selling,
installing, and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that
the UL standard proposed to be incorporated by reference is reasonably
available.
    EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference the GHS diamond
symbol (pictogram) for hazard category 1 flammable gases from Annex 1
to the 9th edition of the Global Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals, copyrighted in 2021, in the use conditions
for hazard labeling of commercial and industrial refrigeration
equipment. This document is available for viewing online at: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-9/GHS_Rev9E_0.pdf. Printed versions
and electronic editable versions are available for sale at the United
Nations Publications section at: https://shop.un.org/books/global-harmon-syst-class-9-92280. The cost of the 9th edition of the GHS is
$75.00 for an electronic copy or $150.00 for a printed hard copy. A
copyright permission request is not required for the use of up to 2
graphs, charges, tables, and figures. The cost of obtaining this
standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment
manufacturers or for those selling, installing, and servicing the
equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that the GHS symbol proposed to be
incorporated by reference is reasonably available.
    EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 15-2022, ``Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems,'' in the
use conditions for refrigerants listed for use in larger refrigeration
equipment (see summary in section II.A.4 of the preamble) and ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 34-2022, ``Designation and Safety Classification of
Refrigerants,'' in the use conditions for labeling refrigeration
equipment with the safety classification of the refrigerant used (see
summary in section II.A.2 of the preamble). These standards are
available at https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/ashrae-refrigeration-resources, and may be purchased by mail at: 180
Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree Corners, Georgia 30092; by telephone:
1-800-527-4723 in the U.S. or Canada. ASHRAE 15-2022 and ASHRAE 34-2022
are available as a bundle costing $169.00 for an electronic copy or
hard copy. The cost of obtaining these standards is not a significant
financial burden for equipment manufacturers or for those selling,
installing, and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that
the ASHRAE standards proposed to be incorporated by reference are
reasonably available.
    The following standards are already approved for locations where
they appear in the amendatory text: UL 471, UL 541, UL 484, UL 60335-2-
24, and 60335-2-40.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 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 (people of color and/or indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
    EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on
people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. This
action's health and environmental risk assessments are contained in the
comparison of health and environmental risks for HFC-32, HFO-1234yf,
HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-
516A as well as in the risk screens that are available in the docket
for this rulemaking. EPA's analysis indicates that other environmental
impacts and human health impacts of HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E),
R-290, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A are
comparable to or less than those of other substitutes that are listed
as acceptable for the same end-use. Because adoption of the new
substitutes listed in this proposed rule is voluntary, the Agency is
unable to quantify when, where, and

how much of the listed substitutes will be produced and used. Thus, EPA
cannot determine the extent to which this proposed rule will exacerbate
or reduce existing disproportionate adverse effects on communities of
color and low-income people as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether this
action is likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects
on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
The Agency will continue to evaluate the impacts of this program on
communities with environmental justice concerns and consider further
action, as appropriate.

IV. References

    Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available
electronically through the Federal Docket Management System at
regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0043.

ASHRAE, 2022a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2022: Safety Standard for
Refrigeration Systems. 2022
ASHRAE, 2022b. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2022: Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants. 2022.
Carter, 2010. ``Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and
Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales,'' Report to the California Air
Resources Board by William P. L. Carter. Revised January 27, 2010.
GHS, 2021. Pictogram for Hazard Category 1 Flammable Gases from
Annex 1 to the 9th edition of the Global Harmonized System of
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, 2021. Available online at
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-9/GHS_Rev9E_0.pdf or from
the United Nations Publications section at: https://shop.un.org/books/global-harmon-syst-class-9-92280.
Hodnebrog, et al., 2013. Hodnebrog, [Oslash]., Etminan, M.,
Fuglestvedt, J.S., Marston, G., Myhre, G., Nielsen, C.J., Shine,
K.P., and Wallington, T.J. (2013). Global Warming Potentials and
Radiative Efficiencies of Halocarbons and Related Compounds: A
Comprehensive Review, Reviews of Geophysics, 51, 300-378. Available
at: doi.org/10.1002/rog.20013.
ICF, 2014. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.
ICF, 2016. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the Potential Impact
of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
September, 2016.
ICF, 2020. Additional Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. May,
2020.
ICF, 2023a. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(New Equipment); Substitute: HFO-1234yf.
ICF, 2023b. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(New Equipment); Substitute: HFO-1234ze(E) (Solstice[supreg] ze,
Solstice[supreg] 1234ze).
ICF, 2023c. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-454A (Opteon[supreg] XL40).
ICF, 2023d. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-454C (OpteonTM XL20).
ICF, 2023e. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-455A (Solstice[supreg] L40X).
ICF, 2023f. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-457A (Forane[supreg] 457A).
ICF, 2023g. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-516A (Forane[supreg] 516A).
ICF, 2023h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(New Equipment); Substitute: Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2023i. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: HFC-32.
ICF, 2023j. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: HFO-1234yf.
ICF, 2023k. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-454A (Opteon[supreg] XL40).
ICF, 2023l. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-454B (Opteon[supreg] XL41).
ICF, 2023m. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-454C (OpteonTM XL20).
ICF, 2023n. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-455A (Solstice[supreg] L40X).
ICF, 2023o. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-457A (Forane[supreg] 457A).
ICF, 2023p. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: R-516A (Forane[supreg] 516A).
ICF, 2023q. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines
(New Equipment); Substitute: Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2023r. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration (New Equipment); Substitute: HFC-32 (Difluoromethane)
ICF, 2023s. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Ice Skating Rinks (New
Equipment); Substitute: HFO-1234yf.
ICF, 2023t. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Ice Skating Rinks (New
Equipment); Substitute: HFO-1234ze(E) (Solstice[supreg] ze,
Solstice[supreg] 1234ze).
ICF, 2023u. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration and Cold Storage Warehouses (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-454A (Opteon[supreg] XL40).
ICF, 2023v. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration (New Equipment); Substitute: R-454B (Opteon[supreg]
XL41).
ICF, 2023w. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Ice Skating Rinks (New
Equipment); Substitute: R-454C (OpteonTM XL20).
ICF, 2023x. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Ice Skating Rinks (New
Equipment); Substitute: R-455A (Solstice[supreg] L40X).
ICF, 2023y. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Ice Skating Rinks (New
Equipment); Substitute: R-457A (Forane[supreg] 457A).
ICF, 2023z. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Industrial Process
Refrigeration, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Ice Skating Rinks (New
Equipment); Substitute: R-516A (Forane[supreg] 516A).
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., Qin, D.,
Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and
Miller, H.L. (eds.). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1.
Nielsen et al., 2007. Nielsen, O.J., Javadi, M.S., Sulbaek Andersen,
M.P., Hurley, M.D., Wallington, T.J., Singh, R. (2007). Atmospheric
chemistry of CF3CF=CH2: Kinetics and
mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and
O3. Chemical Physics Letters 439, 18-22. Available at:
www.lexissecuritiesmosaic.com/gateway/FedReg/network_OJN_174_CF3CF=CH2.pdf.
UL 471, 2010. Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition.
Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing
a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. November 24,
2010.
UL 563, 2009. Standard for Safety: Ice Makers--Supplement SA:
Requirements for Ice Makers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the
Refrigerating System, 8th edition, July 31, 2009, including
revisions through November 29, 2013.
UL 60335-2-89, 2021. Household And Similar Electrical Appliances--
Safety--Part 2-89: Particular Requirements for Commercial
Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or
Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor Compressor. 2nd edition. October
27, 2021.
U.S. EPA, 2020. 2017 National Emissions Inventory Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at https://gispub.epa.gov/neireport/2017/.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2018. Burkholder et al.
Appendix A, Table A-1 in Scientific Assessment of

Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project,
Report No. 58, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Stratospheric ozone
layer.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 82 as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

0
2. Amend appendix R to subpart G of part 82 by:
0
a. Revising the heading; and
0
b. Revising the table titled ``Substitutes That Are Acceptable Subject
to Use Conditions.''
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix R to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions Listed in the December 20, 2011, Final Rule, Effective
February 21, 2012, in the April 10, 2015, Final Rule, Effective May 11,
2015, in the April 28, 2023, Final Rule, Effective May 30, 2023, and in
the [date of publication of the final rule], Final Rule, Effective
[effective date of the final rule]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.012

* * * * *
0
3. Amend appendix V to subpart G of part 82 by:
0
a. Revising the heading; and
0
b. Revising the table titled ``Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix V to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the December 1,
2016, Final Rule, Effective January 3, 2017, and Listed in the [date of
publication of the final rule], Final Rule, Effective [effective date
of final rule]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.020

* * * * *
0
4. Add appendix Y to subpart G of part 82 to read as follows:

Appendix Y to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Listed in the [Date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], Final Rule,
Effective [30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY23.040

0
5. Amend Sec. 82.154 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(viii) to read as
follows:

Sec. 82.154  Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (viii)Propane (R-290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers--
stand alone units; household refrigerators, freezers, and combination
refrigerators and freezers; self-contained room air conditioners for
residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps;
vending machines; effective January 3, 2017, self-contained commercial
ice machines, very low temperature refrigeration equipment, and water
coolers; and effective [30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], retail food refrigeration--refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-09600 Filed 5-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 271-272]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30803]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73952; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-146]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 7.32 in Order To Increase the Maximum Order Entry Size
to Five Million Shares

December 29, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 18, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.32 in
order to increase the maximum order entry size to five million shares.
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.32 (``Rule 7.32'') currently provides
that orders entered with a size greater than one million shares shall
be rejected. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.32 to increase the
size of orders that may be entered on the Exchange. As proposed, Rule
7.32 would be amended to specify that orders entered with a size
greater than five million shares would be rejected.\4\ The Exchange
believes that the increased maximum order size would enable ETP Holders
with orders sized larger than one million shares to enter a single
order at the Exchange rather than have to break such order into
separate orders of one million shares or less for purposes of order
entry at the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange notes that ETP Holders entering
such large-sized orders would be subject to the market access control
requirements set forth in Rule 15c3-5 under the Act (``Rule 15c3-5'')
relating to the entry of orders.\6\ The Exchange also proposes, upon at
least 24 hours advance notice to market participants, to decrease the
maximum order size of five million shares on a security-by-security
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ At the time the current rule was approved, Exchange systems
could not accept orders with a size greater than one million shares.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71331 (January 16, 2014), 79
FR 3907 (January 23, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-92) [sic]. Exchange
systems are now ready to accept orders up to five million shares.
    \5\ The Exchange notes that the New York Stock Exchange, LLC
(``NYSE'') supports the entry of orders up to 25,000,000 in size.
See NYSE Rule 1000.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule
change, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date via
Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\ in
particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that increasing the maximum order size would remove
impediments to and perfect a national market system by increasing
capacity and providing more efficient methods for ETP Holders to
transmit large-sized orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would not be inconsistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors because investors would not be
harmed by the increase in the maximum size of orders that the Exchange
would accept since ETP Holders entering such large-sized orders would
continue to be subject to the market access control requirements of
Rule 15c3-5. The Exchange further believes that the proposed ability
for the Exchange to decrease the maximum order size on a security-by-
security basis following notice to the market also would remove
impediments and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because
it provides the Exchange with the flexibility to reduce order entry
size to respond to a market event that may warrant a smaller order size
entry for a symbol. The Exchange believes that providing at least 24
hours-notice would be consistent with the public interest and the
protection of investors at is [sic] would provide time for ETP Holders
to adjust their order entry for a symbol should such a decrease be
warranted for a symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market environment and the proposed change, by
expanding the size of the orders the Exchange would accept, is designed
to attract order flow to the Exchange by making the entry of large-
sized orders more efficient for ETP Holders.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

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-NYSEArca-2014-146 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-146. 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-146 and should
be submitted on or before January 26, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30803 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60872]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27795]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0509; FRL-9972-52-Region 3]

Full Withdrawal of Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality
Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia;
Control of Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the October 26, 2017 direct
final rule (DFR) that approved a negative declaration submitted by the
City of Philadelphia. The negative declaration certified that no
existing sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units exist within the City
of Philadelphia. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA
received adverse comments by November 27, 2017, the rule would be
withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse
comment. This withdrawal action is being taken under sections 129 and
111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 82 FR 49511 on October 26,
2017, is withdrawn effective December 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0509 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Gordon,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Philadelphia Air Management Services
submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA certifying on March 28,
2012 that there are no SSI units subject to the requirements of
sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA in its respective air pollution
control jurisdiction. The negative declaration letter and EPA's
technical support document for this action are available in the docket
for this rulemaking and available online at www.regulations.gov.
    Please see additional information provided in the direct final
action published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2017 (82 FR
49511) and in the companion proposed rule which was also published on
October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49563). In the DFR, we stated that if we
received adverse comment by November 27, 2017, the rule would be
withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse
comment. EPA will address the comment received in a subsequent final
action based upon the proposed action also published on October 26,
2017. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. As
a result of the comment received, EPA is withdrawing the direct final
rule approving the negative declaration submitted by the City of
Philadelphia for existing SSI units.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: December 15, 2017.
Cosmo Servidio
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 62.9665, published on October 26,
2017 (82 FR 49511), are withdrawn effective December 26, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-27795 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30317-30322]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No.: FAA-2017-0879]
RIN 2120-AA65

Criteria and Process for the Cancellation of Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures as Part of the National Procedures Assessment (NPA)

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

ACTION: Statement of policy.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is finalizing
specific criteria to guide the identification and selection of
appropriate circling procedures that can be considered for
cancellation. These procedures include certain circling procedures (to
include circling-only instrument approach procedures (IAPs) and
circling minima charted on straight-in IAPs). The circling procedures
associated with this cancellation initiative will be selected based on
the criteria outlined in this statement of policy. This document is not
a part of the FAA's VOR minimum operating network (MON) initiative.

DATES: This statement of policy is effective July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this statement of policy,
see ``How To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lonnie Everhart, Aeronautical
Information Services, AJV-5, Federal Aviation Administration, Air
Traffic Organization, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169;
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority for This Rulemaking

    Under 49 U.S.C. 40103(a), the Administrator has broad authority to
regulate the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The
Administrator is also authorized to issue air traffic rules and
regulations to govern the flight, navigation, protection, and
identification of aircraft for the protections of persons and property
on the ground and for the efficient use of the navigable airspace. 49
U.S.C. 40103(b). Under section 44701(a)(5), the Administrator promotes
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and
procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This action is within the scope of that authority.
    SIAPs are promulgated by rulemaking procedures and are incorporated
by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 into Title
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 97 (14 CFR part 97),
Subpart C--TERPS Procedures.

II. Background

    The National Airspace System (NAS) is currently in transition to a
``NextGen NAS.'' During this transition, the FAA is managing the
technology and procedures to support both the legacy (NavAid-based) NAS
as well as the NextGen (satellite-based) NAS. As new technology has
facilitated the introduction of area navigation (RNAV) instrument
approach procedures over the past decade, the number of procedures
available in the NAS has nearly doubled. The complexity and cost to the
FAA of maintaining the instrument flight procedures inventory while
expanding the new RNAV capability is not sustainable. Managing two
versions of the NAS requires excess manpower, infrastructure, and
information management which is costly and unsupportable in the long-
term. To mitigate these costs, the FAA has a number of efforts underway
to effectively transition from the legacy to the NextGen NAS. One area
of focus for this transition is instrument flight procedures (IFPs).
The FAA seeks to ensure an effective transition from ground-based IFPs
to greater availability and use of satellite-based IFPs while
maintaining NAS safety.
    In early 2015, the FAA requested the RTCA's Tactical Operations
Committee (TOC) \1\ with providing recommendations on criteria and
processes for cancelling instrument flight procedures. Among the many
recommendations provided by the TOC were criteria to identify circling
procedures that would qualify as candidates for cancellation. As of
March 29, 2018, there are 12,068 IAPs in publication, consisting of
33,825 lines of minima, 11,701 of which are circling lines of minima.
This represents a nearly 9 percent increase in IAP lines of minima from
September 18, 2014. Circling procedures account for approximately one-
third of all lines of minima for IAPs in the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The TOC is a subcommittee comprised of FAA and industry
representatives established under the RTCA advisory committee in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the unsustainable growth in the number of IFPs, the
FAA requested feedback and recommendations from the RTCA TOC related to
removing underutilized or unneeded IFPs to facilitate a transition to
NextGen and reduce FAA maintenance costs related to IFPs. The task
group assigned to study IFP reduction adopted the following guiding
principles when considering their recommendations:
     Utilization was determined not to be a valid stand-alone
criterion, as usage data can be inaccurate or unavailable in some cases
and does not necessarily reflect the operational value of an IFP.
     Effort was focused on a NAS-level examination of public
procedures maintained by the FAA. Additionally, specific criteria for
special operating conditions, such as those in Alaska, where additional
considerations may be required, should be developed apart from this
effort.
     The FAA procedure reduction program is highly dependent
upon and interwoven with other efforts such as VOR Minimum Operating
Network (MON), the Performance Based Navigation (PBN) NAS Navigation
Strategy effort and the ongoing rewrite of the Regional Airspace
Procedures Team (RAPT) Order, and these efforts need to be synchronized
as each effort progresses.
     Airways were deemed to be beyond the focus of this group's
effort.
     When evaluating any procedure, air traffic personnel and
operators should be involved.

Proposed Criteria

    In its continued effort to right-size the NAS through optimization
and elimination of redundant and unnecessary IAPs, on October 6, 2017,
the FAA published a proposed policy and request for comment that
identified the following criteria to guide the identification and
selection of appropriate circling procedures to be considered for
cancellation. 82 FR 46738.
    The FAA proposed that all circling procedures will continue to be
reviewed through the established IAP periodic review process.\2\ As
part of that review process, the FAA proposed that each circling
procedure be evaluated against the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 2-8 of FAA Order 8260.19 (Flight Procedures and
Airspace) sets forth the minimum frequency of review of instrument
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is this procedure a designated MON airport procedure?
     If multiple IAPs serve a single runway end, is this the
lowest circling minima for that runway?

    Note:  If the RNAV circling minima is not the lowest, but is
within 50' of the lowest, the FAA would give the RNAV preference.

     Would cancellation result in removal of circling minima
from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an airport?

    Note:  If circling minima exists for multiple Conventional
NAVAID procedures, preference would be to retain ILS circling
minima.

     Would cancellation result in all circling minima being
removed from all airports within 20 NM?

     Will removal eliminate lowest landing minima to an
individual runway?
    The following questions are applicable only to circling-only
procedures:
     Does this circling-only procedure exist because of high
terrain or an obstacle that makes a straight-in procedure unfeasible or
which would result in the straight-in minimums being higher than the
circling minima?
     Is this circling-only procedure (1) at an airport where
not all runway ends have a straight-in IAP, and (2) does it have a
Final Approach Course not aligned within 45 degrees of a runway which
has a straight-in IAP?
    The FAA proposed that further consideration for cancellation under
this policy would be terminated if any of the aforementioned questions
are answered in the affirmative. If all questions are answered in the
negative, the procedure would be processed as described in the
following paragraph.
    When a candidate has been identified, Aeronautical Information
Services would send a notification of procedure cancellation memorandum
and completed checklist to the appropriate Regional Service Area,
Operations Support Group.\3\ The Regional Service Area, Operations
Support Group would follow the same notification process used for
standard IFP requests.\4\ Consistent with FAA procedures outlined in
the procedure cancellation memorandum, comments regarding the
aforementioned circling procedure would need to be submitted within 30
days of the timestamp on the communication media through which it was
delivered. Comments would be directed to the Regional Service Area,
Operations Support Group for dissemination to Aeronautical Information
Services. Comments would be adjudicated by Aeronautical Information
Services within 30 days of the timestamp on the communication media
through which it was received. A final decision would be forwarded to
Regional Service Area, Operations Support Group to disseminate to
commenter(s). The cancellation of the part 97 instrument procedure will
be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FAA has placed sample copies of the memorandum and
checklist into the docket for this document.
    \4\ FAA Order 8260.43 (Flight Procedures Management Program) and
FAA Order 8260.26 (Establishing Submission Cutoff Dates for Civil
Instrument Procedures) contain additional information on this
process. These orders are available on the FAA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposed policy, the FAA noted that National Procedures
Assessment (NPA) Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) cancellation
activities and associated criteria do not supersede similar activities
being performed under the FAA's VOR MON Program. See 81 FR 48694 (July
26, 2016). However, NPA IFP cancellation activities have been
coordinated with the FAA office responsible for the VOR MON
implementation program, and its input has been thoroughly considered.

III. Discussion of Comments Received

    The FAA received 11 comments pertaining to the proposed statement
of policy. Commenters included the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and
nine individuals.
    AOPA suggested adding language to the proposed policy to point out
the cancellation criteria's consideration of circling procedures being
required for pilot training and testing. AOPA expressed concern that
flight procedures critical to part 142 training centers could be
cancelled without the awareness of these training centers, and
requested coordination with the National Simulator Program (and
simulator operators) before any IFPs are cancelled to prevent adversely
hindering simulator training and testing. AOPA also requested the FAA
implement outreach recommendations made in the March 2016 RTCA NPA
Report ``Process and Criteria for Cancellation of Instrument Flight
Procedures'' \5\ to ensure users and air traffic control are able to
provide input prior to IFP cancellation decisions being made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A copy of this report has been placed in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language has been added to one of the questions used to evaluate
each circling procedure expressing awareness of the need to retain
sufficient circling procedures to allow for instrument flight
proficiency and training. That criterion now states, ``Would
cancellation result in all circling minima being removed from all
airports within 20 NM?'' This particular criteria recognizes the
circling-related content of the Instrument Rating--Airplane Airman
Certification Standards (ACS). Once a circling procedure is proposed
for cancellation, it will be posted on the Instrument Flight Procedures
Information Gateway (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/). This information will be provided to the National
Simulator Program, Air Traffic Services, and the Operations Support
Groups. This notification will enable them to maintain awareness of
IFP-related actions, including proposed cancellations for circling
procedures, and communicate this site's availability to their
stakeholders for their awareness. Additionally, language has been added
to the statement of policy that informs users how to access the FAA's
Instrument Flight Procedures Information Gateway (IFP Gateway), through
which they can be notified when there are proposed actions to
instrument flight procedures at airports of their choosing. Users will
be able to submit comments pertaining to proposed circling flight
procedure cancellations, and each comment will be taken into
consideration before a final determination is made.
    NBAA requested the proposed policy be temporarily suspended while
Flight Management Systems (FMS) issues that resulted in a number of
IFPs being inadvertently eliminated from FMS IFP databases could be
evaluated and considered with respect to the proposed policy.
    The inadvertent removal of IFPs from certain FMS was unrelated to
any action by the FAA with regard to IFP process. The NBAA's suggestion
that the effective date of this policy be temporarily suspended or
delayed while these FMS issues are addressed is not practical
considering these criteria have been discussed, vetted via the RTCA
TOC, in which NBAA has been a participant, and finally published in the
2016 RTCA Final NPA Report. Additionally, any circling procedure
cancellations that result from implementation of this policy should not
impact the probability of future FMS issues as mentioned in the NBAA's
comment.
    One commenter expressed approval of the cancellation of a circling
procedure only if all runways accessible by the procedure have a
straight-in IAP with lower minimums than those associated with the
cancelled procedure. The individual also expressed the need for some
circling procedures to remain in the NAS given the tasks and maneuvers
of the Instrument Rating--Airplane Airman Certification Standards
(ACS).
    The FAA's policy is not intended to ensure straight-in IAPs for
every runway end, but rather minimizing IFP redundancy in the NAS. The
FAA acknowledges that with the cancellation of some circling
procedures, there may be reduced airport accessibility, but no
reduction in runway availability. To the extent that the commenter
expressed concern over the ACS, the criteria the FAA is finalizing
takes into account circling procedures in the ACS. The fourth criteria,
which asks whether

cancellation will result in all circling minima being removed from all
airports within 20 NMs, should ensure that there are sufficient
circling procedures for pilot training and testing.
    One individual expressed concern that economic, environmental and
air traffic management impacts of removing the circling approaches
needs to be considered in this policy. The individual also recommended
that IFR use over the last several years be evaluated and included as
part of the policy.
    The FAA has invested significant resources in the infrastructure of
the NAS pertaining to IFPs, and a significant portion of those
resources have resulted in an increased number of NextGen IFPs. Because
of this, the IFP inventory is at an unsustainable level given the
current and projected resources needed to maintain IFPs. Also, the
criteria outlined in the proposed policy is a result of a collaborative
effort between the FAA and aviation industry stakeholders to accomplish
a reduction in the number of circling procedures while considering the
very concerns expressed by the individual. One of the guiding
principles adopted by the TOC Task Group in considering their
recommendations for this effort was that IFP utilization was determined
not to be a valid stand-alone criterion, as usage data can be
inaccurate or unavailable in some cases and does not necessarily
reflect the operational value of an IFP. The proposed criteria are only
a foundation for identifying procedures for cancellation and is not
sole justification for any IFP being cancelled. Once a procedure is
identified and proposed for cancellation, and that proposal is posted
on the IFP Gateway, stakeholders will have the opportunity to present
their justification for retaining that procedure, and each
justification will be considered and adjudicated before a determination
is made to either retain or cancel that procedure.
    One individual stated that the proposed policy does not account for
convenience and efficiency, and provided an example of the VOR-A at
MOTON FIELD MUNI (K06A). The individual also asked the FAA to add the
following to the criteria:
     Does circling allow the pilot to access runways not served
by other IAPs?
     Does the existing approach allow the pilot to approach the
field and/or access the runway more directly than the alternative
straight in approaches?
     Are sufficient alternatives available so that the removal
of this circling approach will not force pilots to fly significantly
further to access each runway when considering all possible arrival
sectors and winds?
     Would removing this circling approach cause harm by
forcing pilots to fly further to access straight in approaches?
    As stated previously, the proposed policy could minimally impact
accessibility to some airports, but the current inventory of IFPs is
not sustainable. The proposed policy is intended to minimize IFP
redundancy currently present in the NAS, and convenience and efficiency
could be impacted at some airports. However, convenience and efficiency
have also been significantly enhanced at numerous airports with the
implementation of NextGen IFPs, so the commenter's assertion would need
to be considered for each specific IFP and each airport with
consideration given to the IFP enhancements made at that airport over
the last several years. As noted, the public will have an opportunity
to provide comment on a proposed cancellation of a specific IFP prior
to its cancellation.
    The K06A VOR-A is a good example of the IFP redundancy that
currently exists within the NAS, as it highlights the investment of
resources in NextGen IFPs. At this particular airport, K06A, two RNAV
(GPS) IAPs have been installed--one for each runway end. Both of the
NextGen approaches have circling minima as good as or better than the
minima offered by the VOR-A. Additionally, both of the NextGen IAPs
have straight-in minima substantially better than the circling minima
offered by the VOR-A, and yet the commenter points out that the VOR-A
is useful because the NextGen IAPs add significant distance (time and
fuel) to ``shoot those approaches from the north or south.'' The FAA
notes that NextGen IAPs can also be used to approach from a particular
direction, east in the commenter's comment, then circle to land on the
appropriate runway if needed. Additionally, straight-in approaches with
circling minima are viable IAPs for circling to other runways at that
airport in accordance with any circling restrictions noted on the
associated IAP.
    Regarding the additional questions the commenter recommended adding
to the criteria, the first criterion request is unnecessary as the
FAA's proposed criteria prevents the cancellation of all circling
procedures at an airport, so runways currently accessible via circling
will remain accessible. For the other 3 criteria recommendations from
the commenter, all users will be able to provide justification for
objecting to the cancellation of specific circling procedures once a
particular circling procedure has been proposed for cancellation and
publicized on the IFP Gateway, and those objections will be adjudicated
on their own merits. Additionally, the commenter's terms ``more
directly'', ``significantly further'', and ``cause harm'' are both
subjective and ambiguous, and do not provide measurable elements with
which to determine a specific procedure's necessity and/or value.
    One individual expressed their approval of the proposed policy and
expressed their opinion, based upon their stated aviation experience,
that circle-to-land maneuvers are dangerous as they can lead to task
saturation. The commenter also supported the proposed criteria that
ensures at least one circling procedure remains at airports that
currently have a circling procedure.
    The FAA appreciates the commenter's support of this initiative, but
also recognizes the need and purpose for circling procedures in the
NAS. While circling maneuvers may involve unique requirement for
aviators and air traffic control specialists, it is something that is
accounted for in training requirements and, as such, is not considered
dangerous. The FAA recognizes that unique situations and conditions
could warrant a circling approach, and the design criteria for circling
approaches reflects that.
    One individual expressed concern regarding their inability to
utilize RNAV (GPS) IFPs due to their lack of ADS-B equipage at this
time, and the only non-NextGen IAP at their home airport, CLARENCE E.
PAGE MUNI (KRCE), is the VOR-B.
    The FAA notes that this particular approach would not be considered
for cancellation as part of this policy due to it not meeting the
criteria that states, ``Would cancellation result in removal of
circling minima from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an
airport?'' Because the cancellation of the KRCE VOR-B would result in
the cancellation of circling minima from all conventional NAVAID
procedures at KRCE, it would not be considered for cancellation as part
of this policy.
    One individual expressed concerns pertaining to the safety critical
nature of circling minima for piston aircraft due to the ability to
remain in closer proximity to an airport than when using ``direct RNAV
approaches,'' and cited ``deteriorating weather, possible icing, and
thunder storm conditions'' as justification for retention of circling
minima. The individual's assertions lack sufficient details and
specifics for

the FAA to provide an informed response. Accounting for every possible
situation and condition of flight with flight procedures is not
practical. Both circling maneuvers and straight-in maneuvers are
evaluated using the same criteria and one is not safer than the other
is. Access to airports is a separate issue and should be raised to the
airport owner/operator and Air Traffic Control through comments
submitted after notification of a candidate procedure for cancellation
under this program.
    One individual requested the following criteria to assure that the
FAA maintains or improves the access to the airport, stating that
access to a candidate location should never be reduced in the interest
of process efficiency:

 Availability of SBAS approach procedure to the intended
landing runway in lieu of the circle approach to provide direct access
to that runway
 If SBAS and ground based navigation is available at that
facility the circling minima for the ground based approach should be
retained to allow facility access in the event that GPS availability is
degraded or not available

    As previously stated, this IFP reduction effort could impact access
at some airports, but the criteria in this policy are in agreement with
the PBN NAS Navigation Strategy effort. The addition of NextGen IFPs at
airports across the country has substantially improved access at
numerous airports, which significantly offsets and frequently outweighs
claims of circling procedure cancellations resulting in reduced access
to airports. The transition to a predominantly NextGen NAS requires a
reduction in ground-based IFPs and infrastructure as outlined in the
VOR MON Final Policy Statement published in the Federal Register July
26, 2016. VOR MON policy specifically states, ``The MON will enable
pilots to revert from Performance Based Navigation (PBN) to
conventional navigation for approach, terminal and en route operations
in the event of a GPS outage and supports the NAS transition from VOR-
based routes to a more efficient PBN structure consistent with NextGen
goals and the NAS Efficient Streamlined Services Initiative.'' In
accordance with VOR MON, NextGen, NAS Efficient Streamlined Services
Initiative, and PBN NAS Navigation Strategy, conventional navigation
services for approach, terminal and en route operations will be
minimized in a strategic manner consistent with these initiatives.
    One individual recommended additional criteria to take into
consideration nearby ``high volume airports'' when considering the
cancellation of circling procedures, and the example of using the ILS
OR LOC RWY 16 to circle to land RWY 34 at CHICAGO EXECUTIVE (KPWK), and
its ``close proximity to CHICAGO OHARE INTL (KORD)'' as an example. The
criteria requested by the individual states, ``Would the potential
cancelling of the circling minimums involve an airport that is in close
proximity to a high volume airport, impact safety, procedures or
encounter delays?''
    In the commenter's example, the ILS OR LOC RWY 16 at KPWK would
retain its circling minima in accordance with the FAA's proposed
policy's criteria, ``Would cancellation result in removal of circling
minima from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an airport? Note: If
circling minima exists for multiple Conventional NAVAID procedures,
preference would be to retain ILS circling minima.''
    Regarding the criteria proposed by the individual, circling
procedures are being reviewed at every U.S. airport that has instrument
approach procedures. ATC's involvement via notification from the
Operations Support Group (Flight Procedures Team) will allow them ample
opportunity to prevent the cancellation of circling procedures they
deem necessary to their operations, and public notification, via the
IFP Gateway, will allow the public ample opportunity to communicate
concerns regarding the proposed cancellation of any circling procedure.

IV. Statement of Policy

    Based on the comments received, the FAA is finalizing the following
policy regarding the criteria and process for the cancellation of
standard instrument approach procedures as Part of the national
procedures assessment as follows:
    All circling procedures will continue to be reviewed through the
established IAP periodic review process.\6\ As part of that review
process, each circling procedure will be evaluated against the
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 2-8 of FAA Order 8260.19 (Flight Procedures and
Airspace) sets forth the minimum frequency of review of instrument
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is this the only IAP at the airport?
     Is this procedure a designated MON airport procedure?
     If multiple IAPs serve a single runway end, does this
procedure provide the lowest circling minima for that runway? \7\ Note:
If the RNAV circling minima is not the lowest, but is within 50' of the
lowest, the FAA would give the RNAV preference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This criterion has been slightly reworded for clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Would cancellation result in removal of circling minima
from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an airport? Note: If
circling minima exists for multiple Conventional NAVAID procedures,
preference would be to retain ILS circling minima.
     Would cancellation result in all circling minima being
removed from all airports within 20 NMs? This particular criterion
recognizes the circling content of the Instrument Rating--Airplane
Airman Certification Standards (ACS).
     Will removal eliminate lowest landing minima to an
individual runway?
    The following questions are applicable only to circling-only
procedures:
     Does this circling-only procedure exist because of high
terrain or an obstacle which makes a straight-in procedure infeasible
or which would result in the straight-in minimums being higher than the
circling minima?
     Is this circling-only procedure (1) at an airport where
not all runway ends have a straight-in IAP, and (2) does it have a
Final Approach Course not aligned within 45 degrees of a runway which
has a straight-in IAP?
    Further consideration for cancellation under this policy will be
terminated if any of the aforementioned questions are answered in the
affirmative. If all questions are answered in the negative, the
procedure will be processed as described in the following paragraph.
    When a candidate has been identified for cancellation, Aeronautical
Information Services will post the proposed cancellation on the
Instrument Flight Procedures Information Gateway (IFP Gateway) (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/) and send a
notification of procedure cancellation memorandum and completed
checklist (see attached NPA Checklist Sample) to the appropriate
Regional Service Area, Operations Support Group.\8\ The Regional
Service Area, Operations Support Group will follow the same
notification process used for standard IFP requests.\9\

Comments regarding the aforementioned circling procedure should be
submitted via email to: [email protected]. Comments
will only be considered and adjudicated when submitted prior to the
comment deadline associated with the flight procedure as listed on the
IFP Coordination tab of the Instrument Flight Procedures Information
Gateway site. Aeronautical Information Services will adjudicate and
respond to each comment within 30 days of being received. When a
determination is made to cancel a part 97 instrument flight procedure
or circling line of minima, the cancellation will be published in the
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The FAA has placed sample copies of the memorandum and
checklist into the docket for this document.
    \9\ FAA Order 8260.43 (Flight Procedures Management Program) and
FAA Order 8260.26 (Establishing Submission Cutoff Dates for Civil
Instrument Procedures) contain additional information on this
process. These orders are available on the FAA website.

    Issued in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on June 21, 2018.
Gary Powell,
Director, Aeronautical Information Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-13875 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11980-11981]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0509; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-15]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Casper, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace areas at Casper, Natrona
County International Airport, Casper, WY, to facilitate vectoring of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic from en route airspace to the
airport. Decommissioning of the Muddy Mountain VOR Omnidirectional
Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) has made reconfiguration
necessary for the safety and management of aircraft operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, May 2, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On November 14, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend controlled airspace at
Casper, WY (77 FR 67782). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6004,
6005 and 6006, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012,
and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface, to facilitate vectoring of IFR traffic from en
route airspace to the airport, due to the decommissioning of the Muddy
Mountain VORTAC at Casper, Natrona County International Airport,
Casper, WY. This action also amends Class E en route domestic airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface by removing the
exclusionary language in the regulatory text. This action enhances the
safety and management of aircraft operations within the National
Airspace System.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
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 this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies
controlled airspace at Casper, Natrona County International Airport,
Casper, WY.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 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]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D Surface area.

* * * * *

ANM WY E4 Casper, WY [Modified]

Casper, Natrona County International Airport, WY
    (Lat. 42[deg]54'29'' N., long. 106[deg]27'52'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 4.3 miles
each side of the 036[deg] bearing of the Natrona County
International Airport extending from the airport to 13.7 miles
northeast of the airport, and within 4.3 miles each side of the
216[deg] bearing of the Natrona County International Airport
extending from the airport to 15 miles southwest of the airport, and
within 2.7 miles each side of the 269[deg] bearing of the Natrona
County International Airport extending from airport to 13.5 miles
west of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

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

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Casper, WY [Modified]

Casper, Natrona County International Airport, WY
    (Lat. 42[deg]54'29'' N., long. 106[deg]27'52'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 24-mile radius of the Natrona County International Airport;
that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within a 38-mile radius of the Natrona County International Airport.

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

ANM WY E6 Casper, WY [Modified]

Casper, Natrona County International Airport, WY
    (Lat. 42[deg]54'29'' N., long. 106[deg]27'52'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an 85-mile radius of Natrona County International Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 1, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-03981 Filed 2-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P