[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70180-70183]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28666]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126; FRL-9936-10-OSWER]
RIN-2050-AG75

Revision to the Research, Development and Demonstration Permits
Rule for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise the maximum permit term for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
(MSWLF) units operating under Research, Development and Demonstration
(RD&D) permits. The RD&D permit program, which began in 2004, allows
landfill facilities to utilize innovative and new methods that vary
from the prescribed run-on control systems, liquids restrictions, and
final cover criteria if these systems are determined by the Director of
states with EPA-approved RD&D programs, as defined in 40 CFR 258.2, to
meet the criteria in 40 CFR 258.4. The current rule limits permits for
these units to 3 years each, renewable 3 times for a total permit term
of 12 years. If finalized, this rule will allow the Director of an
approved State to increase the number of permit renewals to 6, for a
total permit term of up to 21 years. The EPA is not proposing any other
changes to the existing MSWLF RD&D permit program at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
December 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2015-0126 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and
Waste Management Division of the Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery (mail code 5304P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposal are public or
private owners or operators of MSWLFs. These entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                   Example of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Governments......................  Regulatory agencies and
                                          agencies operating landfills.
Industry...............................  Owners or operators of
                                          municipal solid waste
                                          landfills.
Municipalities, including Tribal         Owners or operators of
 Governments.                             municipal solid waste
                                          landfills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The affected entities may also fall under the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 924110, Sanitation
engineering agencies, government; or 562212, Solid Waste Landfill. This
list of sectors is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA believes
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 258 and

the Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills final rule published in the Federal Register at
69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004, (``2004 RD&D rule''). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

B. What action is the agency taking?

    The EPA is proposing to revise the maximum permit term for MSWLF
units operating under RD&D permits. In effect, this proposed rule, if
finalized, would allow the Directors of a states with EPA-approved RD&D
programs to increase the number of 3-year permit renewals from 3 to 6,
for a total permit term of 21 years.
    The basis for the proposed extension of the permit period to up to
21 years is to provide more time to support research into the
performance of bioreactors, alternative covers and run-on systems. The
EPA believes the period of 21 years strikes a balance between providing
more time for projects to continue operations as research facilities,
while providing enough time for the EPA to consider making permanent
changes to the Part 258 MSWLF regulations.

C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    The authority for this proposal is sections 1008, 2002(a), 4004,
4005(c), 4010 and 8001(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c),
6949a, 6981(a).

D. What are the anticipated effects and benefits of this action?

    The anticipated effect of this proposed action, when final, is to
provide the Director of an approved State the ability to issue renewals
to existing RD&D permits, as well as new RD&D permits, for up to 21
years instead of 12 years. During this time, the EPA will continue to
evaluate data from these facilities. The universe of facilities
presently covered by this action is approximately 30 facilities
currently operating with RD&D permits, and one on tribal lands.
Additional facilities may also continue to seek an RD&D permit after
this action is finalized. The EPA has no information with which to
estimate whether or not, nor how many, new facilities will seek RD&D
permits. Owners/operators operating under existing RD&D permits are not
expected to incur any new costs as a result of this proposed rule. The
annual costs for ongoing recordkeeping and annual reporting
requirements are estimated at $2,410 per facility.
    It is important to note that applying for a RD&D permit is
voluntary. This proposed action would merely allow the Director of an
approved State to increase the number of extensions of the permit
period for existing facilities, or offer more extensions of the permit
term for new facilities, for those owners and operators who choose to
participate in this research program; it would not impose any new
regulatory burden. Increasing the possible number of extensions of the
RD&D permit term may benefit current owners and operators of RD&D units
by providing additional time to recover their costs, if the Director of
an approved State chooses to extend existing permits. For example, data
from one RD&D permitted facility shows a projected increase of 3% in
the rate of return for 20 years compared to 12 years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See docket # EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126 for supporting
documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increasing the possible number of extensions of RD&D permit terms
will provide more time for the EPA to collect additional data on the
potential benefits of the approaches being taken under these RD&D
permits. These potential benefits include: Decreased costs for leachate
treatment due to leachate recirculation in bioreactors; increased
revenue from the sale of landfill gas for use as a renewable source of
fuel; decreased risk due to a reduction in the transportation of
leachate for treatment; accelerated production and capture of landfill
gas for use as a renewable fuel; and, accelerated stabilization, and
corresponding decreased post-closure care activities, for facilities as
a result of the accelerated decomposition of waste.

II. Background

    Under Subchapter IV of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6941-6949a, the EPA has
promulgated minimum national standards for MSWLFs at 40 CFR part 258.
See 56 FR 50978 (October 9, 1991). RCRA also directs the EPA to
encourage research and development for, among other things, the
development and application of new and improved methods of collecting
and disposing of solid waste. 42 U.S.C. 6981(a).
    The initial MSWLF regulations addressed seven basic areas: Location
restrictions; operation; design; groundwater monitoring; corrective
action; closure and post-closure care; and financial assurance. These
MSWLF landfill regulations focused on dry-tomb landfills to minimize
the possibility of groundwater contamination from the production and
subsequent leakage of leachate. After the promulgation of those
standards, the EPA became aware that landfill technology had advanced
sufficiently that some alternative designs and operations could benefit
from further study through research and demonstration projects. For
example, some of these methods, particularly the addition of liquids
and leachate recirculation, could accelerate biodegradation and provide
additional potential benefits. These include:

--Acceleration of landfill gas generation which can be collected as a
source of renewable fuel.
--Minimization of leachate treatment requirements during the
operational life of the landfill.
--More rapid reduction in concentration of leachate constituents of
concern, thereby limiting the corresponding post-closure activities for
leachate control.
--An increase in the rate of landfill settlement resulting in the more
efficient use of permitted landfill capacity.

    As a means to advance innovation in landfill design, in 2000 the
EPA selected four landfills to participate in its Project XL program.
The landfills are located in Buncombe County, North Carolina; Yolo
County, California; King George County, Virginia; and the Maplewood
facility in Amelia Country, Virginia.
    In addition to Project XL, in 2001 the EPA began using Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) to promote collaborative
research between federal and non-federal scientists as an additional
means to explore the addition of liquids to landfills to promote faster
biodegradation and stabilization. Bioreactor landfill sites operating
with CRADAs include the Outer Loop landfill in Louisville, Kentucky;
and the Polk County landfill in Florida.
    Subsequently, in 2004, the EPA amended 40 CFR part 258 MSWLF
regulations to create a broader RD&D research program. The 2004 RD&D
rule, which amended Sec.  258.4 enabled the Director of an approved
State to allow RD&D projects with variances to specific provisions of
the MSWLF criteria, including variances from operating criteria in part
258 subpart C with respect to run-on controls (Sec.  258.26(a)(1)) and
the liquids restrictions in Sec.  258.28(a). In addition, the rule
allows an additional variance for the final cover requirements set
forth in the closure criteria in Sec. Sec.  258.60(a)(1), (a)(2) and
(b)(1). The 2004 RD&D rule limits the duration of the initial permit to
3 years. The permit can be renewed for up to three additional 3-year
terms,

for a total of 12 years. More information on the RD&D rule can be found
in the final rule preamble. See 69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004.
    As of March 2014, there were 30 active RD&D projects in 11 approved
states and one project on tribal lands.\2\ The maximum permit period
for the first of these bioreactors is coming to an end, and the EPA
proposes to allow the Director of an approved State to continue to
extend the permit period for up to a total of 21 years to allow for
continued research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten years
After the RD&D Rule, EPA document number EPA/600/R-14/335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What the EPA Is Proposing

    The EPA is proposing to allow Directors of states with EPA-approved
RD&D programs to increase the maximum term for RD&D permits from 12 to
21 years at 40 CFR 258.4(e)(1), to provide more time to support
research into the performance of bioreactors, alternative covers and
run-on systems. In effect, this proposed rule, if finalized, would
allow the Director of an approved State to increase the number of
permit renewals from three to six. The EPA is not proposing any other
changes to the RD&D permit program at this time. The EPA is not
reopening, nor will it respond to comments on, any other provision of
the existing RD&D rule or MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR part 258.
    Separately from this proposal, the EPA expects to publish an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on
revising other sections of the MSWLF (40 CFR part 258) criteria to
authorize bioreactor operation (and other changes to the national
criteria) on a permanent basis. Interested parties will have an
opportunity to comment on broader issues relating to bioreactor
operation during the public comment period on that ANPRM.

B. Basis for This Proposal

    In the 2004 RD&D final rule, the EPA made clear its intention that
MSWLF RD&D permits be of limited duration, yet also provide data to
support future rulemaking. This proposal is intended to further these
dual goals. Although the EPA does not expect that all RD&D permits will
necessarily extend to the full permit term, the EPA has since learned
that the 12-year time limit may not be sufficient to realize potential
benefits in all cases. Thus, extending the permit period for up to 21
years will provide more time to collect data on potential benefits and
any problems without making the permit period so long as to be open-
ended.
    Extending the maximum permit term will help continuing efforts to
collect data at existing RD&D units. If the EPA does not take this
action, owners and operators using existing RD&D permits would need to
make significant modifications to their disposal units or cease
operation altogether, before reaching the end of their normal
operations or closure. Because of the potential environmental benefits
that may be derived from bioreactors, alternative cover designs, and
run-on systems, the EPA believes that it is important to extend the
maximum permit period to 21 years to provide more time to characterize
the performance of RD&D projects without making the permit period so
long as to be open-ended.
    The EPA also wishes to enhance the economic feasibility to build
and operate bioreactors or final cover variances in the future, and to
thereby provide additional sources of data. In addition, the EPA has
heard from stakeholders that the current 12-year maximum permit period
is an insufficient length of time for potential owners and operators of
bioreactors to recoup their initial investment. These stakeholders have
indicated limiting the permit period to 12 years has the unintended
consequence of discouraging the development of bioreactors.

C. Implementation of This Proposal

    This proposal does not require states with EPA-approved RD&D
programs to modify their solid waste permit programs. Since this
proposed change to the RD&D rule provides more flexibility than
existing federal criteria, states are not required to amend existing
solid waste permit programs that have been determined by the EPA to be
adequate under 40 CFR part 239. States will have the option to amend
their programs once this proposal is finalized. At the same time, the
RD&D rule (including this proposed revision of the maximum permit term)
is not self-implementing and states are required to adopt the RD&D rule
and obtain EPA approval for their RD&D program in order to issue a RD&D
permit. States previously approved to issue RD&D permits that wish to
increase the total length of time for which RD&D permits can be issued
will need to notify the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 239. States
with EPA-approved solid waste permit programs that have not previously
sought approval for an RD&D program and now wish to do so will need to
apply to EPA for approval of an RD&D program, including approval of the
longer time period allowed by this proposal. Any state without an EPA-
approved solid waste permit program may submit an application to the
EPA for a determination of adequacy under 40 CFR part 239 and may
include a request for approval of the RD&D permit provisions reflecting
the longer time period allowed by this proposal. For municipal solid
waste landfill units located in Indian Country, the EPA intends to
consider the longer maximum permit term in this proposal when issuing
or modifying any site-specific RD&D rule. The EPA has previously issued
draft guidance on the site-specific flexibility request process in
Indian Country. See Site-specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country, EPA 530-R-97-016, August 1997.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new Information Collection Request
(ICR) burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information
collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has
assigned OMB control numbers 2050-0152 and 2050-0122. The purpose of
this action is to extend the maximum allowable permit period for this
program and this change to the RD&D program itself does not impose any
additional reporting requirements. The OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities contained in the existing regulations
in two different, applicable ICRs. The ICRs affected by this proposal
are for 40 CFR part 239, Requirements for State Permit Program
Determination of Adequacy and part 258, MSWLF Criteria. The OMB has
reviewed the ICR for part 239 (ICR# 1608.07, OMB# 2050-0152.) The EPA
will request comments under the ICR review process from states that
plan to make these revisions so that the EPA can better understand the
expected burden that would be incurred by states who wish to make these
changes. In addition, the EPA will also be requesting information from
MSWLF owners/operators on the reporting burden that they would incur
under an extended permit term

provided in accordance with this proposal under the part 258, MSWLF
criteria ICR (ICR# 1381.09, OMB# 2050-0122) when that review process
begins. This process is scheduled to be completed in June 2016.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule will not create any
additional burden for small entities. Small entities are not required
to take any action as a consequence of this proposed rule, and this
action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
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. The costs involved
in this action are imposed only by voluntary participation in a federal
program.

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. Although
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposal, the EPA has
consulted with states through the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials during the development of this
proposal.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA has concluded that this proposal will
have no new tribal implications, nor would it present any additional
burden on the tribes. It will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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 (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations.
    The underlying RD&D rule requires any RD&D permit to include such
terms and conditions at least as protective as the criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills to assure protection of human health
and the environment, and this proposal does not reopen or otherwise
change that requirement. Therefore, the EPA finds that the human health
or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

    Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: October 30, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 258 as follows:

PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

0
1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907,
6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) and 6949a(c), 6981(a).

Subpart A--General

0
2. Revise Sec.  258.4(e)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  258.4  Research, development, and demonstration permits.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) The total term for a permit for a project including renewals
may not exceed twenty-one (21) years; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-28666 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41659-41662]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1158; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-125-AD;
Amendment 39-16750; AD 2011-15-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to the products listed above. That AD currently requires
repetitive inspections to detect damage of the sleeving and wire
bundles of the boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks, and
of the auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if installed); replacement of any
damaged sleeving with new sleeving; and repair or replacement of any
damaged wires with new wires. For airplanes on which any burned wires
are found, that AD also requires an inspection to detect damage of the
conduit, and replacement of any damaged conduit with a serviceable
conduit. This new AD reduces the initial compliance time and repetitive
inspection interval in the existing AD. This AD was prompted by fleet
information indicating that the repetitive inspection interval in the
existing AD is too long because excessive chafing of the sleeving
continues to occur much earlier than expected between scheduled
inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct abrasion of
the Teflon sleeving and wires in the bundles of the fuel boost pumps
for the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks and of the auxiliary tank
jettison pumps (if installed), which could result in electrical arcing
between the wires and aluminum conduit and consequent fire or explosion
of the fuel tank.

DATES: This AD is effective August 19, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 19,
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356. 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; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6505; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede an airworthiness directive (AD) 97-26-07,
Amendment 39-10250 (62 FR 65352, December 12, 1997). That AD applies to
the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
December 14, 2010 (75 FR 77793). That NPRM proposed to continue to
require repetitive inspections to detect damage of the sleeving and
wire bundles of the boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks,
and of the auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if installed); replacement of
any damaged sleeving with new sleeving; and repair or replacement of
any damaged wires with new wires. For airplanes on which any burned
wires are found, that NPRM also proposed to continue to require an
inspection to detect damage of the conduit, and replacement of any
damaged conduit with a serviceable conduit. That NPRM proposed to
reduce the initial compliance time and repetitive inspection interval
in the existing AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Change Heading for Restated Requirements

    United Airlines (UA) asked that we change the heading titled
``Restatement of Requirements of AD 96-26-06, Amendment 39-9870,''
which precedes paragraph (g) of the NPRM, to ``Restatement of
Requirements of AD 97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250. UA pointed out that AD
97-26-07 superseded AD 96-26-06.
    We agree with UA for the reason provided. Although certain
requirements in AD 96-26-06 are carried over in AD 97-26-07--and in
this AD--those requirements are identified by the AD number within the
applicable paragraphs. We have changed the heading preceding paragraph
(g) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Add Approved Alternate Method of Compliance

    UA asked that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision
2, dated September 1, 2005, be included in paragraphs (g), (i), (j),
and (k) of the NPRM. UA stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005, was approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the requirements of
paragraph (a) of AD 97-26-07.
    We partially agree with UA. We agree that Revision 2, dated
September 1, 2005, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, was
reviewed by the FAA, and approved as an AMOC to the requirements of
paragraph (a) of AD 97-26-07. We do not agree that Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005, should be
added to the requested paragraphs because those paragraphs are part of
the restatement of the requirements of AD 97-26-07. However, we have
added a new paragraph (p) to this AD (and reidentified subsequent
paragraphs) to give operators credit for using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005, to
accomplish the specified actions.

Request To Include Terminating Action

    UA asked that terminating action be included in the NPRM. UA stated
that it believes Boeing is developing a solution that would terminate
the inspections required by the NPRM.
    We acknowledge the comment from UA. However, Boeing has not
submitted a revised service bulletin with terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. We are aware that Boeing is developing a
solution to the wire chafing issue, but until a modification is
approved and available we are unable to reference it in the AD.
However, under the provisions of paragraph (q) of this AD, we will
consider requests for accomplishing a terminating modification if data
are submitted to substantiate that it would provide an acceptable level
of safety. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator
nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 215 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden. The
current costs for this AD are repeated below for the convenience of
affected operators.
    The actions that are required by AD 97-26-07 and retained in this
AD take about 4 work-hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of
$85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
currently required actions is $73,100, or $340 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),
    (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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250 (62 FR 65352, December 12, 1997), and
adding the following new AD:

2011-15-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16750; Docket No. FAA-
2010-1158; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-125-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective August 19, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -
100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -400D, -400F,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by fleet information indicating that
the repetitive inspection interval in the existing AD is too long
because excessive chafing of the sleeving continues to occur much
earlier than expected between scheduled inspections. The Federal
Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct
abrasion of the Teflon sleeving and wires in the bundles of the fuel
boost pumps for the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks and of the
auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if installed), which could result in
electrical arcing between the wires and aluminum conduit and
consequent fire or explosion of the fuel tank.

Compliance

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

Restatement of Requirements of AD 97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250

Inspections/Repair or Replace if Necessary

    (g) Perform an initial inspection to detect damage of the
sleeving and wire bundles of the forward and aft boost pumps of the
numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks, and of the wire bundles of the
auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if installed), in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated December 19, 1996;
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 1, dated October 30,
1997; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 3,
dated March 11, 2010; at the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. After the effective date of this
AD, only Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204 may
be used.
    (1) For airplanes having line numbers 001 through 432 inclusive:
Inspect within 120 days after January 21, 1997 (the effective date
of AD 96-26-06, amendment 39-9870, which was superseded by AD 97-26-
07).
    (2) For airplanes having line numbers 433 and subsequent:
Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)
or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 flight cycles or 60,000
flight hours, whichever occurs first; or
    (ii) Within 120 days after December 29, 1997 (the effective date
of AD 97-26-07).
    (h) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD
at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight
hours since the last inspection, whichever occurs first, until the
first inspection required by paragraph (n) of this AD has been
accomplished.
    (i) If any damaged sleeving is found, prior to further flight,
replace the sleeving with new sleeving, in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated December 19, 1996; Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 1, dated October 30, 1997; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 3, dated March
11, 2010. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204 may be used.
    (j) If any damaged wire is found, prior to further flight,
repair or replace the wire with a new wire, in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated December 19, 1996,
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 1, dated October 30,
1997; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 3,
dated March 11, 2010. After the effective date of this AD, only
Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204 may be used.
    (k) If any burned wire is found, prior to further flight,
perform an inspection to detect damage of the conduit, in accordance
with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated December 19,
1996; Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 1, dated October
30, 1997; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 3,
dated March 11, 2010. If any damage is found, prior to further
flight, replace the conduit with a serviceable conduit, in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated
December 19, 1996; Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 1,
dated October 30, 1997; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204, Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010. After the effective date
of this AD, only Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204 may be used.
    (l) For airplanes having line numbers 433 and subsequent: Within
14 days after accomplishing the initial inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, submit a report of any damaged sleeving
(i.e., holes, breaks, cuts, splits), damaged wire (i.e., worn or
cracked insulation, exposed conductor, indication of arcing/
burning), or damaged conduit to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The report shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4), and (l)(5) of this AD. Information
collection requirements contained in this regulation have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) The airplane serial number.
    (2) The total hours' time-in-service accumulated on the
airplane.
    (3) The total number of flight cycles accumulated on the
airplane.
    (4) A description of any damage found.
    (5) The location of where the damaged part was installed.
    (m) For airplanes having line numbers 433 and subsequent: Within
14 days after accomplishing the initial inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, submit any damaged part to the Manager,
Seattle ACO. The damaged part shall be tagged to include the
information specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4),
and (l)(5) of this AD. Additionally, operators shall align the inner
sleeving, outer sleeving, and wire as installed in the airplane, and
secure the sleeving and wiring in place by taping or other means
when submitting the damaged part to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information collection requirements contained in this regulation
have been approved by the OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

New Reduced Inspection Intervals

Repetitive Inspections

    (n) Do the next inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD
at the time specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204, Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,000 flight hours.
Accomplishing the initial inspection in this paragraph ends the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do
the inspection at the earlier of the times specified in paragraph
(n)(1)(i) and (n)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 15,000 flight hours after the most recent inspection,
or within 6,000 flight

hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Within 20,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours after
the most recent inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this
AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date of this
AD: Do the inspection before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight
hours, or within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.

Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    (o) A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (p) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision
2, dated September 1, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (q)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the ACO, send it to ATTN: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be e-
mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 97-26-07,
Amendment 39-10250, are approved as alternative methods of
compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
Compliance time extensions approved previously in accordance with AD
97-26-07, are not approved as alternative methods of compliance for
the compliance times required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (r) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204,
Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204, Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 1, 2011.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-17404 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47557-47558]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0501; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of
Grand Rapids, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the legal descriptions of Jet Route J-34
and VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) Federal airways V-274, V-285, and
V-510, in the vicinity of Grand Rapids, MI. The FAA is taking this
action because the name of the Grand Rapids, MI, VOR/Distance Measure
Equipment (VOR/DME) facility, which is included in the descriptions of
the above routes, is being changed to the Victory VOR/DME.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, November 13, 2014. 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.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Gerald R. Ford International Airport, Grand Rapids, MI, is
located 5.7 miles north of the Grand Rapids VOR/DME. The airport and
the VOR/DME have the same three-letter identifier (GRR) which has
caused some safety concerns. In addition to the airport and the VOR/DME
having the same identifier, pilots and air traffic controllers
routinely refer to both as ``Grand Rapids.'' Cases have been observed
where GPS-equipped aircraft have navigated via the GRR airport rather
than the GRR VOR/DME as expected by air traffic control (ATC), or vice
versa, as well as ATC instructions issued relative to the airport or
VOR/DME having been mistaken by pilots as relative to the other. To
preclude this in the future, the name of the VOR/DME facility is being
changed to Victory VOR/DME with the new three-letter identifier
``VIO.''

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending the legal descriptions of Jet Route J-34 and VOR
Federal airways V-274, V-285, and V-510 to reflect the name change of
one of the navigation aids used to define the routes. To eliminate
confusion, and potential flight safety issues, the Grand Rapids VOR/DME
is renamed the Victory VOR/DME and is assigned a new three-letter
identifier (VIO). The VOR/DME name change does not alter the current
alignment of the affected routes.
    Since this action merely involves editorial changes in the legal
descriptions of the above ATS routes, and does not involve a change in
the dimensions or operating requirements of the affected routes, I find
that notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
unnecessary.
    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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does 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 United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it revises the legal descriptions of jet routes and VOR Federal
airways in the vicinity of Grand Rapids, MI, to eliminate pilot
confusion.
    Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 and Domestic VOR Federal
airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), respectively, of FAA Order
7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The domestic Jet Routes
and VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

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 consists of editorial changes only
and 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 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004. Jet Routes

* * * * *

J-34 [Amended]

    From Hoquiam, WA; Olympia, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Helena, MT;
Billings, MT; Dupree, SD; Redwood Falls, MN; Nodine, MN; Dells, WI;
Badger, WI; Victory, MI; Carleton, MI; Dryer, OH; Bellaire, OH; INT
Bellaire 133[deg] and Kessel, WV, 276[deg] radials; Kessel; to INT
Kessel 097[deg] and Armel, VA, 292[deg] radials.

Paragraph 6010(a)--Domestic VOR Federal Airways

* * * * *

V-274 [Amended]

    From Pullman, MI; Victory, MI; to Saginaw, MI.
* * * * *

V-285 [Amended]

    From Brickyard, IN; Kokomo, IN; Goshen, IN; INT Goshen 038[deg]
and Kalamazoo, MI, 191[deg] radials; Kalamazoo; INT Kalamazoo
014[deg] and Victory, MI, 167[deg] radials; Victory; White Cloud,
MI; Manistee, MI; to Traverse City, MI.
* * * * *

V-510 [Amended]

    From Dickinson, ND; INT Dickinson 078[deg] and Bismarck, ND,
290[deg] radials, 28 miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck; INT Bismarck 067[deg]
and Jamestown, ND, 279[deg] radials, 14 miles, 65 miles, 34 MSL,
Jamestown; Fargo, ND; INT Fargo 110[deg] and Alexandria, MN,
321[deg] radials; Alexandria; INT Alexandria 110[deg] and Gopher,
MN, 321[deg] radials; Gopher; INT Gopher 109[deg] and Nodine, MN,
328[deg] radials; Nodine; to Dells, WI. From Oshkosh, WI; Falls, WI;
INT Falls 114[deg] and Muskegon, MI, 295[deg] radials; Muskegon; INT
Muskegon 154[deg] and Victory, MI, 284[deg] radials, Victory (7
miles wide, 3 miles N and 4 miles S of the centerline); Victory; to
Lansing, MI. From Buffalo, NY; INT Buffalo 045[deg] and Rochester,
NY, 273[deg] radials; to Rochester.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-19208 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40738-40739]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17361]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2011-0017]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection; FEMA
Form 086-0-32 (previously FEMA Form 81-93), Standard Flood Hazard
Determination Form (SFHDF).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed extension, without change, of a currently
approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the
renewal of the Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form which is used
by federally regulated lending institutions.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID FEMA-2010-0017. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) E-mail. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket
ID FEMA-2010-0017 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Bernstein, Insurance Examiner,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA),<PHONE_NUMBER>
for additional information. You may contact the Records Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 23, 1994, Section 303 (a) of
the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
was signed into law. Section 303 (a) of this Act requires the Federal
bank and thrift regulatory agencies to conduct a systematic review of
their regulation and written policies in order to improve efficiency,
reduce unnecessary costs, and eliminate inconsistencies and outmoded
and duplicative requirements. Title V of this Act is the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA). Section 528 of the NFIRA requires that
FEMA develop a standard hazard determination form for recording the
determination of whether a structure is located within an identified
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and whether flood insurance is
available. Section 528 of the NFIRA also requires the use of this form
by regulated lending institutions, federal agency lenders, the Federal
National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, and the Government National Mortgage Association for any
loan made, increased, extended, renewed or purchased by these entities.
    The requirement for federally regulated lending institutions to
determine whether a building or mobile home securing a loan is located
in an area having special flood hazards and whether flood insurance is
available, has been in effect since the enactment of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, although the use of a standard form was not
required until the enactment of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. The establishment of the Standard
Flood Hazard Determination form has enabled lenders to provide
consistent information.

Collection of Information

    Title: Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0040.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 086-0-32 (previously FEMA Form 81-93),
Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form (SFHDF).
    Abstract: FEMA Form 086-0-32 (previously FEMA Form 81-93), SFHDF is
used by regulated lending institutions, federal agency lenders, related
lenders/regulators, and the Government. Federally regulated lending
institutions complete this form when making, increasing, extending,
renewing or purchasing each loan for the purpose is of determining
whether flood insurance is required and available. The form may also be
used by property owner, insurance agents, realtors, community officials
for flood insurance related documentation.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 46,456,460.
    Number of Responses: 46,456,460.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,330,632 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no operation and maintenance, or capital
and start-up costs associated with this collection of information.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: June 29, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-17361 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61763-61764]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests

October 13, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use Of Project Lands And Waters.
    b. Project No: 2232-526.
    c. Date Filed: October 3, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Duke Power Company LLC.
    e. Name of Project: The Catawba-Wateree Project, which includes
Lake Wylie.
    f. Location: The proposed action will take place at Lake Wylie,
which is located in Gaston County, North Carolina on the Catawba River,
at the Reflection Point Subdivision.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kelvin K. Reagan, Senior Lake Services
Representative, Duke Energy Corporation, P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC
28201-1006;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Lesley Kordella at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: November 13, 2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2232-526) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The

Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    k. Description of Request: Duke Power Company LLC, licensee for the
Catawba Wateree Hydroelectric Project, has requested Commission
approval to lease to the North Star Investors II, LLC, 2.31 total acres
of project lands on Lake Wylie for a commercial/ residential marina to
serve the Reflection Point Subdivision, a commercial residential
development located in Gaston County, North Carolina. The marina will
consist of four cluster docks with ninety-eight boat docking locations.
There will be no dredging during construction and the docks will be
constructed off site and floated into place during low peak recreation
usage times.
    l. Location of the Application: This filing is available for review
at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``Comments'', ``Recommendations
for Terms and Conditions'', ``Protest'', or ``Motion to Intervene'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described applications. A copy of the
applications may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's
representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17503 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P