[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11690-11692]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-3993; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-065-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, F4-600R
series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes
(collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310
series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of partial
loss of no-back brake (NBB) efficiency on the trimmable horizontal
stabilizer actuator (THSA). This proposed AD would require an
inspection to determine THSA part number, serial numbers, and flight
cycles on certain THSAs; and repetitive replacement for certain THSAs.
We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of THSA NBB efficiency, which
in conjunction with the power gear not able to keep the ball screw in
its last commanded position, could lead to an uncommanded movement of
the horizontal stabilizer, possibly resulting in loss of control of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93
44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3993; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-3993;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-065-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2015-0081, dated May 7, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    During endurance qualification tests on a Trimmable Horizontal
Stabilizer Actuator (THSA) concerning another aeroplane type, a
partial loss of the noback brake (NBB) efficiency was experienced.
Investigation results concluded that this partial loss of braking
efficiency in some specific aerodynamic load conditions was due to
polishing and auto-contamination of the NBB carbon friction disks.
    Due to design similarity on the A300-600, A300-600ST and A310
fleet, the same tests were initiated by the THSA manufacturer on
certain type THSA, sampled from the field. Subject tests confirmed
that THSA Part Number (P/N) 47142 series, as installed on the A300-
600, A300-600ST and A310 fleet, are also affected by this partial
loss of NBB efficiency.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, and in
conjunction with the power gear not able to keep the ball screw in
its last commanded position, could potentially lead to an
uncommanded movement of the Horizontal Stabilizer, possibly
resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
removal from service of each affected THSA, with the intent of in-
shop NBB carbon disk replacement.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3993.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6070, dated
February 17, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2106, dated
February 17, 2015. This service information describes procedures for
inspection and replacement of the THSA.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Explanation of Compliance Times

    In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount
of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, EASA has
already issued regulations that require operators to replace certain
THSAs to address an identified unsafe condition by certain dates, but
before exceeding certain flight cycle limits corresponding to each
date. To provide for coordinated implementation of EASA's regulations
and this proposed AD, we are using the same compliance dates in this
proposed AD.
    This AD proposes the replacement of the NBB disks at an interval of
14,600 flight cycles to take full benefit of the THSA published life
limits. The replacement of the THSA NBB disks having already
accumulated more than 14,600 flight cycles will start with the oldest
THSA. A different grace period for NBB disks replacement has been
defined depending on the flight cycles accumulated on the THSA NBB
disks.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 152 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 27 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about
$590,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $90,028,840, or $592,295 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-3993; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-
065-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 21, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(6) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-
103, and B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (6) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of partial loss of no-back brake
(NBB) efficiency on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator
(THSA). We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of THSA NBB
efficiency, which in conjunction with the power gear not able to
keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to an
uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer, possibly
resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Affected THSAs

    THSAs affected by the requirements of this AD have part numbers
(P/Ns) 47142-403, 47142-413, 47142-414, and 47142-423.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  FAA AD 2011-15-08,
Amendment 39-16755 (76 FR 42029, July 18, 2011) requires
installation of three secondary retention plates for the gimbal
bearings on the THSA upper primary attachment, which involved a THSA
part number change from the -300 series to the -400 series.

    Note 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  The life limits specified
in Part 4 of the airworthiness limitations section are still
relevant for the affected THSA. This AD addresses a replacement
limit for the NBB disks installed on the THSA, not the life limit
for the THSA itself.

(h) Inspection for Affected THSAs, Flight Cycles, and THSA Replacement

    Before each date and before exceeding the corresponding THSA
flight-cycle limits specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and
(j)(3) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD, and before exceeding the flight cycle limit
corresponding to each date as specified in paragraphs (j)(1),
(j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD.
    (1) Do an inspection of the THSA to determine the part number
and serial number.
    (2) Do an inspection of the airplane maintenance records to
determine the flight cycles accumulated on each affected THSA since
first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement,
whichever is later. If no maintenance records conclusively
identifying the last NBB disk replacement are available, the flight
cycles accumulated since first installation of the THSA on an
airplane apply.

(i) THSA Replacement

    By each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3)
of this AD, for those affected THSAs having reached or exceeded the
corresponding number of flight cycles

specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD,
replace the THSA with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6070,
dated February 17, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2106,
dated February 17, 2015, as applicable.

(j) Compliance Dates and THSA Flight Cycle Limits

    Paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD specify
compliance dates and THSA flight cycle limits for accomplishing the
actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
    (1) As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD: The
affected THSA flight-cycle limit is 30,000 flight cycles since first
installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since last NBB
replacement, whichever is later.
    (2) As of February 1, 2017: The affected THSA flight-cycle limit
is 20,000 flight cycles since first installation of the THSA on an
airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.
    (3) As of February 1, 2018: The affected THSA flight-cycle limit
is 14,600 flight cycles since first installation of the THSA on an
airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.

(k) Serviceable THSA Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable THSA is a unit
identified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
    (1) A THSA identified in paragraph (g) of this AD that, as of
each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this
AD, has not exceeded the flight cycle limits specified in paragraphs
(j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD since first installation of
the THSA on an airplane, or since the last NBB disk replacement,
whichever is later.
    (2) A THSA with a different part number (e.g., a THSA that is
not identified in paragraph (g) of this AD) that is not affected by
the requirements of this AD.

(l) THSA Replacements

    As of each date and before exceeding the flight cycle limit
corresponding to each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2),
and (j)(3) of this AD: Replace each affected THSA with a serviceable
unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-27-6070, dated February 17, 2015; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-27-2106, dated February 17, 2015.

(m) Parts Installation Limitation

    Before each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and
(j)(3) of this AD, an operator may install an affected THSA on an
airplane, provided that the unit has not exceeded the corresponding
number of flight cycles specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and
(j)(3) of this AD, since first installation on an airplane, or since
last NBB replacement, whichever occurred later.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0081, dated May 7, 2015, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2016-3993.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 24, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04562 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 11432]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5944-024]

Moretown Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment

    On November 30, 2020, Moretown Hydroelectric LLC filed an
application for a subsequent license to continue operating the existing
1,200-kilowatt Moretown No. 8 Hydroelectric Project No. 5944 (Moretown
Project or project). The project is located on the Mad River in
Washington County, Vermont. The project does not occupy Federal land.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on November 8,
2022, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for
environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the
record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not
anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, staff intends to prepare a draft and final Environmental
Assessment (EA) on the application to license the Moretown Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues Draft EA.............  June 2023.
Comments on Draft EA...................  July 2023.
Commission issues Final EA.............  October 2023.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations under 40
  CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1 year of the
  Federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This notice
  establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the Moretown
  Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's regulations, the Final EA
  must be issued within 1 year of the issuance date of this notice.

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Maryam
Zavareh at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: February 15, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03685 Filed 2-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 69618]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24310]

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

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:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-92-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: PXP Phase III Amendments
Filing to be effective 12/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-93-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing 2019-2020 Gas Sales and Purchases
Report.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-94-000.
    Applicants: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 2019-2020 Gas Sales and Purchases
Report.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-95-000.
    Applicants: OkTex Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing 2019-2020 Gas Sales and Purchases
Report.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-96-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 2019-2020 Gas Sales and Purchases
Report.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-97-000.
    Applicants: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 2019-2020 Cashout Report.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-98-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: APL Jackson Generation
Delivery Point Filing to be effective 12/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-99-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: REX 2020-10-27 Non-Conforming
Negotiated Rate Amendment to be effective 10/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-100-000.
    Applicants: National Grid LNG, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2020-10-27 National Grid LNG
Rate Filing to be effective 12/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201027-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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: October 28, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24310 Filed 11-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8484-8485]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0535; Airspace Docket No. 09-AGL-11]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Langdon, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace for Langdon, ND to
accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs) at Robertson Field Airport, Langdon, ND. The FAA is
taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument
Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 3, 2010. 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: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 4, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace for
Langdon, ND, creating controlled airspace at Robertson Field Airport
(74 FR 63684) Docket No. FAA-2009-0535. 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 paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T
signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, 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
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate SIAPs at Robertson Field Airport,
Langdon, ND. This action is necessary for the safety and management of
IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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 that 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, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Robertson Field Airport,
Langdon, ND.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is amended as follows:
* * * * *

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

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Langdon, ND [New]

Robertson Field Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]45'11'' N., long. 98[deg]23'37'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Robertson Field Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 4, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-3708 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42011-42013]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15179]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78131; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program that Eliminates Position
and Exercise Limits for Physically-Settled SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
(``SPY'') Options

June 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 20, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of a pilot program
that eliminates position and exercise limits for physically-settled SPY
options (``SPY Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed rule change
is provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules
* * * * *
Rule 4.11. Position Limits
No changes.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01-.06 No change.
    .07 The position limits under Rule 4.11 applicable to options on
shares or other securities that represent interests in registered
investment companies (or series thereof) organized as open-end
management investment companies, unit investment trusts or similar
entities that satisfy the criteria set forth in Interpretation and
Policy .06 under Rule 5.3 shall be the same as the position limits
applicable to equity options under Rule 4.11 and Interpretations and
Policies thereunder; except that the position limits under Rule 4.11
applicable to option contracts on the securities listed in the below
chart are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Security underlying option                 Position limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DIAMONDS Trust (DIA)........................  300,000 contracts.
The Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipt Trust  None.
 (SPY).
The iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (IWM).......  500,000 contracts.
The PowerShares QQQ Trust (QQQ).................  900,000 contracts.
The iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund      500,000 contracts.
 (EEM).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Position limits for SPY options are subject to a pilot program
through [July 12, 2016] July 12, 2017.
.08 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to
Rule 4.11 (Position Limits) to extend the duration of the SPY Pilot
Program.\5\ The SPY Pilot Program is currently scheduled to expire on
July 12, 2016 and this proposal would extend the SPY Pilot Program
through July 12, 2017. There are no substantive changes being proposed
to the SPY Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67937 (September
27, 2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-091); 70878
(November 14, 2013), 78 FR 69737 (November 20, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-
106); 74149 (January 27, 2015) 80 FR 5606 (February 2, 2015) (SR-
CBOE-2015-008); and 75381 (July 7, 2015) 80 FR 40111 (July 13, 2015)
(SR-CBOE-2015-065).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange
reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported its
original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, which include:
(1) The liquidity of the option and the underlying security; (2) the
market capitalization of the underlying security and the securities
that make up the S&P 500 Index; (3) options reporting requirements; and
(4) financial requirements imposed by CBOE and the Commission. When the
SPY Pilot Program was most recently renewed in July 2015, CBOE
submitted a report providing an analysis of the SPY Pilot Program
during the period January 2014 through May 2015 (the ``Pilot Report'').
In the July 2015 extension, the Exchange stated that if it were to
submit a proposal to either extend the SPY Pilot Program, adopt the SPY
Pilot Program on a permanent basis, or terminate the SPY Pilot Program,
it would submit another Pilot Report covering the period since the
previous extension.\6\ Accordingly, the Exchange is submitting another
Pilot Report that details CBOE's experience with the SPY Pilot Program.
The Pilot Report now includes the period of June 2015 through April
2016. The Pilot Report is attached as Exhibit 3. CBOE notes that it is
unaware of any problems created by the SPY Pilot Program and does not
foresee any as a result of the proposed extension. In extending the SPY
Pilot Program, the Exchange states that if CBOE were to propose another
extension, permanent approval or termination of the SPY Pilot Program,
the Exchange will submit another Pilot Report covering the period since
the previous extension, which will be submitted at least 30 days before
the end of the proposed extension. If the SPY Pilot Program is not
extended or adopted on a permanent basis by July 12, 2017, position
limits in SPY will revert to their Pre-Pilot levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 80 FR at 40112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that extending the
SPY Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
permitting market participants, including market makers, institutional
investors and retail investors, to establish greater positions when
pursuing their investment goals and needs. Extending the SPY Pilot
Program will give the Exchange and the Commission additional time to
evaluate the pilot and its effect on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the
Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead,
the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to
continue as the Exchange expects other SROs will propose similar
extensions.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay, noting
that such waiver will allow the Exchange to extend the pilot program
prior to its expiration on July 12, 2016. In addition, the Exchange
believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow
for the least amount of market disruption as the pilot will continue as
it currently does maintaining the status quo. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 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-CBOE-2016-052 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-052. 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-CBOE-2016-052, and should be
submitted on or before July 19, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15179 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62556-62557]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0624]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0045

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0045,
Adequacy Certification for Reception Facilities and Advance Notice;
without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose
paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
December 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2021-0624]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2021-0624], and must be received by December 10,
2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0045.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (86 FR 45745, August 16, 2021)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Adequacy Certification for Reception Facilities and Advance
Notice.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0045.
    Summary: This information helps ensure that waterfront facilities
are in compliance with reception facility standards. Advance notice
information from vessels ensure effective management of reception
facilities.
    Need: Section 1905 of Title 33 U.S.C. gives the Coast Guard the
authority to certify the adequacy of reception facilities in ports.
Reception facilities are needed to receive waste from ships which may
not discharge at sea. Under these regulations in 33 CFR part 158 there
are discharge limitations for oil and oily waste, noxious liquid
substances, plastics and other garbage.
    Forms:
     CG-5401, Certificate of Adequacy for Reception Facility.
     CG-5401A, Application for a Reception Facility Certificate
of Adequacy (COA) for Oil, Form A.
     CG-5401B, Application for a Reception Facility Certificate
of Adequacy (COA) for Noxious Liquid Substance (NLS) Residues and
Mixtures Containing NLS Residues, Form B.
     CG-5401C, Application for a Reception Facility Certificate
of Adequacy for Garbage, Form C.
     CG-5401D, Application for a Reception Facility Certificate
of Adequacy for Ozone Depletion Substances and Exhaust Gas Cleaning
System Residue, Form D.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of reception facilities, and
owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 4,825
hours to 4,167 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of respondents.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: November 5, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-24584 Filed 11-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 24346]
[DOCID:fr02my08-146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Continent on Surplus Property
Release at Mobile Downtown Airport, Mobile, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on land release request.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the
Mobile Airport Authority to waive the requirement that a 46.75-acre
parcel of surplus property, located at the Mobile Downtown Airport, be
used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Jackson Airports
District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-
2307.

    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Thomas Hughes, Airport Director at the
following address: P.O. Box 88004, Mobile, Alabama 36608-0004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Schuller, Program Manager,
Jackson Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B,
Jackson, MS 39208-2307,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The land release request may be
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the Mobile
Airport Authority to release 46.75 acres of surplus property at the
Mobile Downtown Airport. The property will be exchanged within the
Mobile Airport Authority for non-obligated land better suited for
aeronautical purposes. The property will be held by the Mobile Airport
Authority and sold in part or in whole to commercial or industrial
users. The property is located along Mobile Bay and is separated from
airside operations by existing, non-aeronautical development. The
airport will realize equivalent fair market value in the exchange of
this property.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
offices of the Mobile Airport Authority, Mobile, Alabama.

    Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on April 1, 2008.
Rans D. Black,
Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, Southern Region.
 [FR Doc. E8-9617 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58311-58313]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23740]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0540; Special Conditions No. 25-757-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 737 Series
Airplanes; Seats With Inertia Locking Devices

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for The Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 737 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel
or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category
airplanes. This design feature is an inertia locking device (ILD)
installed in passenger seats. The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective December 2, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, Cabin and Airframe
Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 27, 2012, Boeing applied for Type Certificate No. A16WE
for Model 737-8 airplanes. On September 19, 2018, Boeing applied for a
change to Type Certificate No. A16WE for seats with inertia locking
devices in Model 737 series airplanes. The Model 737 series airplane is
a twin-engine, transport-category airplane with a maximum takeoff
weight of 194,700 pounds and seating for 220 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 737 series airplanes, as
changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in Type Certificate No. A16WE, or the applicable regulations in

effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for Boeing Model 737 series airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Boeing Model 737 series airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    Boeing Model 737 series airplanes will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    Seats with inertia locking devices.

Discussion

    Boeing will install, in Model 737 series airplanes, Thompson Aero
Seating Ltd. passenger seats that can be translated in the fore and aft
direction by an electrically powered motor (actuator) that is attached
to the seat primary structure. Under typical service-loading
conditions, the motor internal brake is able to translate the seat and
hold the seat in the translated position. However, under the inertial
loads of emergency-landing loading conditions specified in 14 CFR
25.562, the motor internal brake may not be able to maintain the seat
in the required position. The ILD is an ``active'' device intended to
control seat movement (i.e., a system that mechanically deploys during
an impact event) to lock the gears of the motor assembly in place. The
ILD mechanism is activated by the higher inertial load factors that
could occur during an emergency landing event. Each seat place
incorporates two ILDs, one on either side of the seat pan. Only one ILD
is required to hold an occupied seat in position during worst-case
dynamic loading specified in Sec.  25.562.
    The ILD will self-activate only in the event of a predetermined
airplane loading condition such as that occurring during crash or
emergency landing, and will prevent excessive seat forward translation.
A minimum level of protection must be provided if the seat-locking
device does not deploy.
    The normal means of satisfying the structural and occupant
protection requirements of Sec.  25.562 result in a non-quantified, but
nominally predictable, progressive structural deformation or reduction
of injury severity for impact conditions less than the maximum
specified by the rule. However, a seat using ILD technology may involve
a step change in protection for impacts below and above that at which
the ILD activates and deploys to retain the seat pan in place. This
could result in structural deformation or occupant injury output being
higher at an intermediate impact condition than that resulting from the
maximum impact condition. It is acceptable for such step-change
characteristics to exist, provided the resulting output does not exceed
the maximum allowable criteria at any condition at which the ILD does
or does not deploy, up to the maximum severity pulse specified by the
requirements.
    The ideal triangular maximum severity pulse is defined in Advisory
Circular (AC) 25.562-1B. For the evaluation and testing of less-severe
pulses for purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the ILD
deployment setting, a similar triangular pulse should be used with
acceleration, rise time, and velocity change scaled accordingly. The
magnitude of the required pulse should not deviate below the ideal
pulse by more than 0.5g until 1.33t1 is reached, where
t1 represents the time interval between 0 and t1
on the referenced pulse shape as shown in AC 25.562-1B. This is an
acceptable method of compliance to the test requirements of the special
conditions.
    Conditions 1 through 5 address ensuring that the ILD activates when
intended, to provide the necessary protection of occupants. This
includes protection of a range of occupants under various accident
conditions. Conditions 6 through 10 address maintenance and reliability
of the ILD, including any outside influences on the mechanism, to
ensure it functions as intended.
    The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that
the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-19-11-
SC for the Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, which was published in
the Federal Register on August 9, 2019 (84 FR 39237). The FAA received
responses from one commenter.
    Boeing states that, as written, because t1 is an
arbitrary point in the shock pulse, the relevance of 1.33t1
is unclear, and believes this is a typographical error. Boeing further
states that the 0.5g deviation below the ideal pulse for the evaluation
and testing of less-severe pulses was proposed for airbags where the
airbag activates a lower pulses (9g or less). The ILD activates at a
higher pulse (14.5g), closer to the pulse specified in the
airworthiness requirements. Boeing states that, in this case, a 2g
deviation below this ideal pulse is more appropriate and would be
acceptable for ensuring the pulse meets the pulse-shape requirement.
    The FAA determined that the ideal pulse discussion in the proposed
special conditions is consistent with FAA's previous guidance on this
issue. The FAA's intent in the Discussion section is to model the less-
severe or reduced-pulse test conditions after the ideal pulse defined
in AC 25.562-1B, figure 3.1, where t1 is defined as the rise
time. The recommendation to not deviate from the ideal pulse by more
than 0.5g until 1.33t1 is intended to ensure an appropriate
pulse shape is achieved for such reduced-pulse tests. This is not a
typographical error and is consistent with previous policy provided for
conducting reduced-pulse tests for seats with airbag systems. This
recommendation remains true regardless of the activation setting for
the feature under consideration, provided that the activation setting
is less than the minimum pulse defined in AC 25.562-1B, figure 3.1,
e.g., 16g for a forward test. A 2g deviation from the ideal pulse is
discussed in appendix 1 of AC 25.562-1B, and is relevant only when
evaluating an actual pulse to the ideal pulse under normal (non-
reduced) conditions. Because the Discussion section of this special
conditions document is intended to convey an acceptable means for
conducting reduced-pulse tests, and is not a regulatory requirement,
the content of the Discussion section remains as proposed. However, the
FAA recognizes that other means to conduct reduced-pulse tests may be
proposed, provided

that the applicant can show that the test conditions are scaled
appropriately.
    Except as discussed above, the special conditions are adopted as
proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later date
for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 737 series airplanes.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562, passenger seats
incorporating an inertia locking device (ILD) must meet the following:
    1. Level of Protection Provided by ILD--It must be demonstrated by
test that the seats and attachments, when subject to the emergency-
landing dynamic conditions specified in Sec.  25.562, and with one ILD
not deployed, do not experience structural failure that could result
in:
    a. Separation of the seat from the airplane floor.
    b. Separation of any part of the seat that could form a hazard to
the seat occupant or any other airplane occupant.
    c. Failure of the occupant restraint or any other condition that
could result in the occupant separating from the seat.
    2. Protection Provided Below and Above the ILD Actuation
Condition--If step-change effects on occupant protection exist for
impacts below and above that at which the ILD deploys, tests must be
performed to demonstrate that the occupant is shown to be protected at
any condition at which the ILD does or does not deploy, up to the
maximum severity pulse specified by Sec.  25.562. Test conditions must
take into account any necessary tolerances for deployment.
    3. Protection Over a Range of Crash Pulse Vectors--The ILD must be
shown to function as intended for all test vectors specified in Sec.
25.562.
    4. Protection During Secondary Impacts--The ILD activation setting
must be demonstrated to maximize the probability of the protection
being available when needed, considering a secondary impact that is
above the severity at which the device is intended to deploy up to the
impact loading required by Sec.  25.562.
    5. Protection of Occupants other than 50th Percentile--Protection
of occupants for a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th
percentile male must be shown.
    6. Inadvertent Operation--It must be shown that any inadvertent
operation of the ILD does not affect the performance of the device
during a subsequent emergency landing.
    7. Installation Protection--It must be shown that the ILD
installation is protected from contamination and interference from
foreign objects.
    8. Reliability--The performance of the ILD must not be altered by
the effects of wear, manufacturing tolerances, aging/drying of
lubricants, and corrosion.
    9. Maintenance and Functional Checks--The design, installation and
operation of the ILD must be such that it is possible to functionally
check the device in place. Additionally, a functional-check method and
a maintenance-check interval must be included in the seat installer's
instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) document.
    10. Release Function--If a means exists to release an inadvertently
activated ILD, the release means must not introduce additional hidden
failures that would prevent the ILD from functioning properly.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 25, 2019.
James E. Wilborn,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-23740 Filed 10-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42557-42558]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17867]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0289; FRL-9440-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Delaware Regional Haze Plan, a revision
to the Delaware State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements and EPA's rules for states to prevent and remedy
future and existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas through a regional haze program. EPA is also approving
this revision since it meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0289. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 89
Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Lewis,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On May 13, 2011, (76 FR 27973) EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. The NPR
proposed approval of Delaware's regional haze plan for the first
implementation period, through 2018. EPA proposed to approve this
revision since it assures reasonable progress toward the national goal
of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas for the
first implementation period. This revision also meets the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and
PM2.5 NAAQS. An explanation of the CAA's visibility
requirements and EPA regional haze rule as they apply to Delaware and
EPA's rationale for approving this SIP revision was provided in the NPR
and will not be restated here.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The revision includes a long term strategy with enforceable
measures ensuring reasonable progress towards meeting the reasonable
progress goals for the first planning period, through 2018. Delaware's
Regional Haze Plan contains the emission reductions needed to achieve
Delaware's share of emission reductions agreed upon through the
regional planning process. Other specific requirements of the CAA and
EPA's Regional Haze Rule and the rationale for EPA's proposed action
are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public
comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving a revision to the Delaware State Implementation
Plan submitted by the State of Delaware, through the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, on September
25, 2008, that addresses regional haze for the first implementation
period. EPA is making a determination that the Delaware Regional Haze
SIP contains the emission reductions needed to achieve Delaware's share
of emission reductions agreed upon through the regional planning
process. Furthermore, Delaware's Regional Haze Plan ensures that
emissions from the State will not interfere with the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring states' Class I areas. In addition, EPA
is approving this revision because it meets the applicable visibility
related requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2) including, but not
limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Delaware's Regional Haze Plan for the
first implementation period, through 2018 may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 27, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry for Regional Haze Plan at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable          State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP         geographic or      submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision               nonattainment area       date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan...............  Statewide...........      9/25/08  7/19/11 [Insert page  ....................
                                                                       number where the
                                                                       document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-17867 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P