[Federal Register: July 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 139)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42296-42308]
[DOCID:fr21jy10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 77

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25002; Amendment No. 77-13]
RIN 2120-AH31

Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the regulations governing objects that may
affect the navigable airspace. These rules have not been revised in
several decades, and the FAA has determined it is necessary to update
the regulations, incorporate case law and legislative action, and
simplify the rule language. These changes will improve safety and
promote the efficient use of the National Airspace System.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective January 18, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions about this
final rule contact Ellen Crum, Air Traffic Systems Operations, Airspace
and Rules Group, AJR-33, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal questions about this final rule
contact Lorelei Peter, Office of the Chief Counsel-Regulations
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The Administrator has broad authority to regulate the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103(a)). The
Administrator is also authorized to issue air traffic rules and
regulations to govern the flight, navigation, protection, and
identification of aircraft for the protection of persons and property
on the ground, and for the efficient use of the navigable airspace (49
U.S.C. 40103(b)). The Administrator may also conduct investigations and
prescribe regulations, standards, and procedures in carrying out the
authority under this part (49 U.S.C. 40113). The Administrator is
authorized to protect civil aircraft in air commerce (49 U.S.C.
44070(a)(5)).
    Under Sec.  44701(a)(5), the Administrator promotes safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum
standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for
safety in air commerce and national security. Also, Sec.  44718
provides that under regulations issued by the Administrator, notice to
the agency is required for any construction, alteration, establishment,
or expansion of a structure or sanitary landfill, when the notice will
promote safety in air commerce, and the efficient use and preservation
of the navigable airspace and airport traffic capacity at public use
airports. This statutory provision also provides that, under
regulations issued by the Administrator, the agency determines whether
such construction or alteration is an obstruction of the navigable
airspace, or an interference with air navigation facilities and
equipment or the navigable airspace. If a determination is made that
the construction or alteration creates an obstruction or otherwise
interferes, the agency then conducts an aeronautical study to determine
adverse impacts on the safe and efficient use of the airspace,
facilities, or equipment.

I. Background

A. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    On June 13, 2006, the FAA published an NPRM that proposed to amend
the regulations governing objects that may affect the navigable
airspace (71 FR 34028). The FAA proposed to: Establish notification
requirements and obstruction standards for transmitting on certain
frequencies; revise obstruction standards for civil airport imaginary
surfaces to more closely align these standards with FAA airport design
and instrument approach procedure (IAP) criteria; revise current
definitions and include new definitions; require proponents to file
with the FAA a notice of proposed construction or alteration for
structures near private use airports that have an FAA-approved IAP; and
increase the number of days in which a notice must be filed with the
FAA before beginning construction or alteration. The comment period
closed on September 11, 2006.

B. Summary of the Final Rule

    The following is a discussion of the major changes contained in the
final rule. The provisions of the final rule that were modified based
on comments the FAA received are discussed in the ``Discussion of the
Final Rule'' section. Most of the amendments implemented by the rule
are intended to simplify the existing regulations.
    This rule adds Sec.  77.29 to incorporate the specific factors
listed in P.L. 100-223 for consideration during an aeronautical study.
The specific factors are listed in Appendix A to this preamble.
Including this language in part 77 does not add or remove any of the
factors currently considered in an aeronautical study.
    This rule provides for an FAA Determination of Hazard or
Determination of No Hazard to become effective 40 days after the date
of issuance, unless a petition for discretionary review is received by
the FAA within 30 days of issuance. In addition, the rule stipulates
that a Determination of No Hazard to air navigation will expire 18
months after the effective date of the determination, or on the date
the proposed construction or alteration is abandoned. Also, the rule
specifies that a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation does not
expire.
    This final rule adds information about the processing of petitions
for discretionary review. It also excludes determinations for temporary
structures and recommendations for marking and lighting from the
discretionary review process. Because of the nature of temporary
structures, it is not possible to apply the lengthy discretionary
review process to these structures. Also, since marking and lighting
recommendations are simply recommendations, there is a separate process
for a waiver of, or deviation from, the recommendations.
    This rule expands the requirements for notice to be sent to the FAA
for proposed construction or alteration of structures on or near
private use airports that have an IAP. Accordingly, if a private use
airport has an FAA-approved IAP, then a construction sponsor must
notify the FAA of a proposed construction or alteration that exceeds
the notice criteria in Sec.  77.17. This action will give the FAA
enough time to adjust the IAP, if needed, and to inform those who use
the IAP.
    Also, IAPs at private use airports or heliports are not currently
listed in any aeronautical publication. Sponsors of construction or
alteration at or near a private use airport or heliport should consult
the FAA Web site to determine whether an FAA-approved IAP is listed for
that airport.\1\ If the airport is listed on the Web site, the sponsor
must file notice with the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://oeaaa.faa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, this rule incorporates minor edits to the regulatory text
to distinguish

FAA surveillance systems from communication facilities.

C. Summary of Comments

    The FAA received approximately 115 comments from individuals,
aviation associations, industry spectrum users, airlines, and other
aviation businesses. Many commenters, including the Air Transport
Association, generally supported the NPRM. Commenters supported
specific proposals concerning evaluating the aeronautical impact of
proposed construction on IAPs at private use airports; evaluating
antenna installations that might affect air traffic or navigation; and
the update and reformat of the regulations. Comments that did not
support the proposed rule, and suggested changes, are discussed more
fully in the ``Discussion of the Final Rule'' section.
    The FAA received substantive comments on the following general
areas of the proposal:
 Frequency notification requirements
 Time requirement to file notice with the FAA
 Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Civil airport imaginary surfaces are established surfaces
based on the runway that are used to identify objects that may
impact airport plans or aircraft departure/arrival procedures or
routes. Section 77.19 describes five types of imaginary surfaces:
horizontal, conical, primary, approach and transitional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 One Engine Inoperative Procedures (OEI)
 Definitions
 Miscellaneous

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

A. Frequency Notification

    The FAA's primary focus during the obstruction evaluation process
is safety and efficiency of the navigable airspace. It is critical for
the agency to be notified of pending construction of physical objects
that may affect the safety of aeronautical operations. (See 49 U.S.C.
44718.) In today's National Airspace System (NAS), however,
electromagnetic transmissions can adversely affect on-board flight
avionics, navigation, communication, and surveillance facilities. The
FAA has extensive authority to prescribe regulations and minimum
standards necessary for safety in air commerce. (See 49 U.S.C. Sec.
44701(a)(5).) In addition, the FAA has broad authority to develop
policy and plans for the use of the navigable airspace. (See 49 U.S.C.
40103.) The FAA relied on these authorities in proposing the notice
requirements for broadcast transmissions in the specified bands. As
stated in the proposal, broadcast transmission on certain frequencies
can pose serious safety threats to avionics and ground based
facilities. At the same time, the FAA recognizes the authority of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to manage use of the radio
spectrum.
    The FAA concludes that its proposal to require notice for the
proposed frequency bands was too broad. The proposed frequencies from
the NPRM are listed in Appendix B to this preamble. The proposed
frequencies in the shared (Federal and Non-Federal) bands are managed
by an existing process involving several Federal agencies with an
interest in spectrum use, which NTIA oversees under the Department of
Commerce. It is not the FAA's intent to add a duplicative review and
coordination process to that already stated above. In addition, the FAA
has determined that some of the proposed frequencies originally listed
and not in shared bands do not present concern. Therefore, the agency
withdraws the proposed notice and obstruction standards on the shared
frequency bands and those frequency bands that, historically, have not
posed electromagnetic concerns,\3\ when operating under typical
specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 54-88 MHz; 150-216 MHz; 406-430 MHz; 931-940 MHz; 952-960
MHz; 1390-1400 MHz; 2500-2700 MHz; 3700-4200 MHz; 5000-5650 MHz;
5925-6225 MHz; 7450-8550 MHz; 14.2-14.4 GHz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FM broadcast service transmissions operating in the 88.0-107.9 MHz
frequency band pose the greatest concern to FAA navigation signals. The
FAA, FCC and NTIA are collaborating on the best way to address this
issue. A resolution of this issue is expected soon. Therefore, the
proposals on FM broadcast service transmissions in the 88.0-107.9 MHz
frequency band remain pending. The FAA will address the comments filed
in this docket about the proposed frequency notice requirements and
proposed EMI obstruction standards when a formal and collaborative
decision is announced.
    This rule does include evaluating electromagnetic effect
(Sec. Sec.  77.29 and 77.31), and it codifies the agency's current
practices of studying the effects on aircraft navigation and
communication facilities. These amendments in no way should be
construed to affect the authority of NTIA and the FCC.

B. Time Requirement To File Notice With the FAA

    Automation improvements to the FAA's obstruction evaluation program
allow the public to file notices of proposed construction
electronically, which facilitates the aeronautical study process and
has reduced the overall processing time for these cases. The FAA
proposed to require that notices of proposed construction or
alterations must be filed with the FAA at least 60 days before
construction starts or the application filing date for a construction
permit, whichever is earliest. The current rule requires 30 days, which
the FAA found inadequate for cases to be processed, particularly if
additional information, via public comment period, was necessary to
complete the study. At the time the FAA published the NPRM, the
automation system was in the early stages, and the full benefits of the
automation were not yet known. Commenters were split on their support
of this proposal, depending on their interests. Comments from the
aviation industry largely supported the extended time period. Comments
filed by the building industry, however, opposed the extended time
period, saying it was too long and would cause undue delay.
    The FAA has seen great success with the automation system and
concludes that requiring notice to be filed 60 days before construction
or the permit application is not necessary. There are cases where
circulating the proposal for public comment may be necessary and,
consequently, these cases may require up to 45 days for processing.
Therefore, the FAA adopts the requirement that notice must be filed
with the FAA for proposed construction or alteration at least 45 days
before either the date that construction begins, or the date of the
construction permit application, whichever is earliest.
    Because applications are required within 45 days of construction,
the FAA, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security
should work together to conduct timely reviews. To that end, the FAA
will respond to inquiries from applicants regarding the status of
applications, the reason(s) for any delay, and the projected date of
completion. As appropriate, the FAA will engage with other Federal
Agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Interior to
expedite any further regulatory modifications and improvements to 14
CFR Part 77 to ensure there is a predictable, consistent, transparent,
and timely application process for the wind industry.
    Several commenters recommended separate notice requirements for
reviewing a temporary structure that might be necessary under
emergency-type circumstances. An example

submitted in the comments was a construction crane that was necessary
to replace air conditioning units on the roof of factories. The
commenters contend that it is neither logical nor feasible to shut down
a factory for 30 days while the FAA studies this temporary structure.
    Situations like the one presented by these commenters are not
uncommon. Regardless of whether the structure is temporary, it remains
critical for the FAA to have notice of tall structures that can affect
aeronautical operations. In most cases, the proponent of the structure
contacts the FAA Obstruction Evaluation (OE) specialist and identifies
the need for a quick review, for which the agency readily responds.
While the FAA regrets any past delay in taking quick action on a
particular case, the agency declines to set-up special procedures to
address such cases. On the FAA's OE Web site,\4\ the agency lists the
contact information for the FAA specialist. If a sponsor is concerned
with the time frame for the FAA's review, the agency encourages the
sponsor to contact the FAA specialist directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://oeaaa.faa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces

    The NPRM proposed, for a visual runway used by small aircraft or
restricted to day-only instrument operations, that the width of the
imaginary approach surface expand uniformly to 1,250 ft. If the runway
is a visual runway, used by other than small aircraft or for instrument
night circling, the surface width expands uniformly from 1,500 ft. to
3,500 ft. If the runway is a non-precision instrument or precision
instrument runway, the surface width expands uniformly to 4,000 ft. and
16,000 ft., respectively. Other changes include removing approach
surface widths of 1,500 ft. and 2,000 ft., and increasing the width for
some non-precision runways from 2,000 ft. to 4,000 ft. The NPRM also
proposed expanding the width of the primary approach surface of a non-
precision instrument runway or precision instrument runway from 500
feet to 1,000 ft.
    Many commenters opposed the proposed expansion of the primary
surface. They argued that the proposed expansion would require airport
operators to remove existing structures that would fall within the
proposed expanded surface, which would result in a financial burden to
airport owners and managers. Southwest Airlines, on the other hand,
supported the proposal and stated the ability to study and review more
proposed structures is positive for airport safety.
    Several comments stated that the imaginary surfaces in part 77 do
not comport clearly with the surfaces used for obstacle clearance under
the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
and, therefore, makes the part 77 surfaces useless as a project
planning tool for airport development.
    Similarly, another commenter argued that the Required Navigation
Performance (RNP) lateral protection area is greater than the width of
the primary surface and the RNP procedures TERPS surface is outside the
part 77 imaginary surface. The commenter contends that an obstacle can
adversely impact an RNP procedure, but not be characterized as an
obstruction. This commenter recommends that the imaginary surfaces be
expanded to include RNP procedures.
    Several commenters specifically questioned whether current
obstructions that fall within the newly expanded primary surface could
impact an instrument procedure and result in the airport losing the
instrument procedure. One airport authority was concerned about marking
and lighting recommendations for existing structures that will now fall
under the expanded primary surface.
    The FAA proposed these changes to more closely align regulatory
provisions in part 77 with TERPS criteria and airport design standards.
The inconsistency between IAP criteria, airport design standards, and
part 77 surfaces has been a source of confusion for both airport
managers and the FAA. These specific proposals would not have altered
the notice criteria. Instead, the proposals were meant to identify more
proposed structures as obstructions that the FAA could study to
determine if they would adversely affect the NAS.
    However, since publication of the NPRM, the FAA has begun a
coordinated effort to consolidate all agency requirements for the
treatment of obstacles in the airport environment. Once completed, the
new requirements will form the basis for revised civil airport
imaginary surfaces. Thus, it would not be prudent to codify the
proposals. Further, amending or expanding any of the civil airport
imaginary surfaces at this time would not be in the best interest of
the public. The FAA, therefore, withdraws all proposed modifications to
the civil airport imaginary surfaces, including the chart format. The
FAA will keep the civil airport imaginary surfaces rule as it is
currently described in 14 CFR 77.25.

D. One Engine Inoperative Procedures

    The NPRM specifically states that OEI procedures were not a part of
the rulemaking. The NPRM further notes that the FAA has tasked the
Airport Obstruction Standards Committee (AOSC) with examining this
issue. Comments from the Air Transport Association, individual
airlines, local airport authorities, and aviation organizations, asked
the FAA to address OEI procedures. These comments have been forwarded
to the AOSC for consideration. As appropriate, the FAA will advise the
aviation industry and other interested persons, through the AOSC, of
any policy changes.

E. Definitions

    The NPRM proposed replacing the term ``utility runway'' with the
phrase ``runway used by small aircraft''. In addition, the NPRM
proposed amending the definitions for precision, non-precision, and
visual runways, as these definitions were no longer up-to-date with
industry practices. The term ``utility runway'' is not widely used in
industry so the NPRM proposed replacing the term. In addition, the NPRM
proposed amending the definitions for precision and non-precision
runways to address approaches that use other than ground based
navigational aids, such as flight management systems (FMS) and global
navigation satellite systems (GNSS). Because of technological advances,
the former definitions for precision and non-precision runways are no
longer accurate.
    By removing the term ``utility runway'', commenters stated the
portions of the rule that include the term became confusing. They note
that the runway classifications and corresponding widths for the
primary and approach surfaces in the tables in Sec.  77.19(d)(e) are
difficult to understand.
    Several commenters confused the proposed definitions for precision
and non-precision instrument runways with the definitions for precision
and non-precision instrument approach procedures.\5\ One commenter
suggested the non-precision runway definition should exclude a runway
that has a developed instrument approach procedure with visibility
minimums of

one statute mile. This commenter contends that many small, general
aviation airports have published procedures with one mile visibility
under the current obstruction criteria of a utility runway. The
commenter also notes that if the FAA adopts the proposal to limit non-
precision runways to procedures with visibility minimums of one statute
mile, then these small airports would need to have the more demanding
primary surfaces and approach criteria. The commenter further says this
could result in financial hardship for these airports and the airports
may need to double the designated airspace around the runway. Another
commenter stated that the new definition for a non-precision runway
conflicts with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The FAA proposed definitions for the terms ``precision
instrument runway'' and ``non-precision instrument runway'' to be
based on the use of visibility minimums, rather than approach
procedure classification, given that visibility is the critical
factor during the visual portion of the approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also indicated that the new definition and associated
surfaces would take runways that currently qualify as utility into the
non-precision category. They say these modifications could result in
unfunded economic burdens on outlying airports with IAPs to utility
runways that experience lower traffic densities. Additionally,
commenters noted that many of these airports are configured with
minimal infrastructure and could face significant airport expansion to
obtain IAP services if the runway is categorized as non-precison.
    Several commenters also stated that the proposed definitions of
precision and non-precision runways try to redefine the current
precision and non-precision instrument procedures because satellite
technology could, in the future, enable non-precision approaches to
become precision approaches.
    Although the FAA proposed to revise these definitions, on further
review, the agency has determined it should not revise them at this
time. The definitions were proposed to support implementing satellite-
based navigation. However, as the satellite-based navigation program
has evolved during development of this rulemaking, the agency has
learned of unintended consequences of the proposed definitions. For
example, changing the runway definition creates infrastructure
requirements that may be needed as the technology evolves. The FAA
believes a more measured approach is needed before making any changes
to the definitions. Thus, the agency will not adopt the proposed
revisions to the definitions in this final rule.

F. Extension to a Determination of No Hazard

    The NPRM proposed a provision for which an extension to the
expiration date for a Determination of No Hazard may be granted.
Specifically, it proposed that for structures not subject to FCC
review, a Determination of No Hazard can be extended for a maximum of
18 months, if necessary. If more than 18 months is necessary, then a
new aeronautical study would be initiated. For structures that require
an FCC construction permit, the NPRM proposed that a Determination of
No Hazard can be extended for up to 12 months, provided the sponsor
submits evidence that an application for a construction permit was
filed within 6 months of the date of issuance. The NPRM also proposed
that if the FCC extends the original FCC construction completion date,
the sponsor must request an extension of the FAA's Determination of No
Hazard.
    Many commenters found that the two time periods (18 and 12 months)
were confusing. The FAA's review of this matter concluded that it is
not necessary to continue the distinction between structures subject to
FCC review from structures that do not need this review, simply to
extend the expiration date. Therefore, for simplification and
standardization, the FAA amends the time period for extensions to
determinations of structures to 18 months, regardless of whether an FCC
construction permit is necessary.
    In addition, the FAA unintentionally omitted a section of the
current rule from the NPRM. That section states that if the FCC denies
a construction permit, the final determination expires on the date of
the denial. The FAA has reinserted that section in this final rule.

G. Effective Date

    The effective date of this final rule is 180 days from the date the
rule is published in the Federal Register. The FAA needs this time to
amend the automation system it uses to evaluate obstructions, amend
relevant FAA orders, train employees, and educate the public.

H. Miscellaneous

    One commenter said the requirement to file notice should extend to
structures that would penetrate an imaginary surface relative to a
planned or proposed airport. Specifically, this commenter seeks to
incorporate the imaginary surfaces for evaluating obstructions under
Sec.  77.19(a) in the notice requirements for structures that are on or
around a planned airport.
    Section 77.9 requires notice for construction on an existing
airport or an airport under construction. This section specifies an
imaginary surface extending from the runway (in increments of 20,000
feet, 10,000 ft., or 5,000 ft., depending on the length of the
airport's runway or heliport) at a specific slope for which notice is
required if it would penetrate one of the surfaces for either an
existing airport or an airport under construction. The above referenced
surfaces, for which the longest surface would extend approximately 3.78
miles from the end of the runway, do not apply to a planned airport for
which construction has yet to begin.
    The effect of this commenter's request would be to require notice
for up to approximately 3.5 miles (for the longest runway) for any
construction that penetrates the 100 to 1 surface for a planned or
proposed airport.
    This comment is outside the scope of the NPRM. The essence of this
comment would be a new notice requirement for planned or proposed
airports. To accommodate this comment without providing the public an
opportunity to comment on its impact would violate the Administrative
Procedure Act.
    Notwithstanding the above scope issue, to apply the imaginary
surface from the notice requirements to planned or proposed airports
would be difficult to implement. A planned or proposed airport can be
at varying stages of development, with runway(s) location and
configuration undetermined, navigational aids not sited, and instrument
approach and departure procedures yet to be developed. It would be
impossible for the FAA to study (and apply the obstruction standards)
with any degree of certainty, to a proposed structure when the above
listed airport issues are not defined. In addition, airport development
can be subject to environmental laws and lengthy processes with
alternative plans that must be analyzed. The FAA cannot ``reserve''
airspace on such speculative plans. The agency does study the impact of
structures that are identified as obstructions on planned or proposed
airports that are on file with the FAA. As the details of a planned
airport become part of the ``plan on file'' with the FAA or the Airport
Layout Plan, on which the FAA can rely, the FAA includes those details
during the study.
    Several commenters questioned the proposed removal of the
regulatory provisions addressing antenna farms and whether any antenna
farms currently exist. The FAA has not established any antenna farm
area. Moreover, the regulations governing structures addresses the FAA
needs

here. Thus, this rule removes the provisions governing antenna farms.
    One commenter questioned why an object that is shielded by another
structure is not subject to the notice requirements. This commenter
contends that if the structure that shields an unreported structure is
dismantled, there is no record of the first structure, nor is there any
requirement to notify the FAA of this structure if the shielding
structure is dismantled.
    Section 77.15(a) provides that notice is not required for a
structure if the shielding structure is of a substantial and permanent
nature and is located in a congested area of a city, town, or
settlement where the shielded structure will not adversely affect
safety in air navigation. This exception does not apply in areas where
there are only one or two other structures. The FAA has not experienced
a situation like the one described by the commenter that can be
attributed to this exception. This rule does expand the current
supplemental notice requirements in Sec.  77.11, and specifies that if
a construction or alteration is abandoned, dismantled, or destroyed,
notice must be provided to the FAA within 5 days after the construction
is abandoned, dismantled, or destroyed. In the rare case where a
shielding structure is abandoned, dismantled, or destroyed, the
proponent must notify the FAA so that appropriate actions concerning
adjacent structures can be initiated.
    Prior to this rule, part 77 provided that a proposed or existing
structure was an obstruction to air navigation if it was higher than
500 ft. above ground level (AGL). The minimum altitude to operate an
aircraft over non-congested areas is 500 feet above the surface.\6\
Consequently, an aircraft could be operating at 500 ft. AGL and
encounter a structure that was 500 ft. AGL that might not have been
studied by the FAA during the obstacle evaluation process. The FAA
adopts the proposal that lowers the height of a structure identified as
an obstruction from above 500 ft. to above 499 ft. Accordingly, all
structures that are above 499 ft. tall will be obstructions, and the
FAA will study them to determine their effect on the navigable
airspace. This will ensure that all usable airspace at and above 500
ft. AGL is addressed during the aeronautical study and that this
airspace is protected from obstructions that may create a hazard to air
navigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 14 CFR Section 91.119(c) provides that ``Except when
necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate an aircraft
below the following altitudes: (b) Over other than congested areas.
An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or
sparely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
the FAA submitted a copy of the new information collection
requirements(s) discussed below to OMB for its review. Notice of OMB
approval for this information collection will be published in a future
Federal Register document.
    Title 49 U.S.C. 44718 states, ``By regulation or by order when
necessary, the Secretary of Transportation shall require a person to
give adequate public notice, in the form and way the Secretary
prescribes, of the construction, alteration, establishment, or
expansion, of a structure or sanitary landfill when public notice will
promote:

    (1) safety in air commerce; and
    (2) the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace
and of airport traffic capacity at public use airports.''

    This final rule implements the requirement for notification by
requiring that notice be submitted to the FAA for proposed construction
or alteration of structures on or near private use airports that have
an IAP. Accordingly, if a private use airport has an FAA-approved IAP,
then a construction sponsor is required to notify the FAA of a proposed
construction or alteration that exceeds the notice criteria in Sec.
77.17. This action will give the FAA adequate time to adjust the IAP,
if needed, and to inform those who use the IAP. While IAPs at private
use airports or heliports are not currently listed in any aeronautical
publication, sponsors of construction or alteration at or near a
private use airport or heliport can consult the FAA Web site\7\ to
determine whether an FAA-approved IAP is listed for that airport. If
the airport is listed on the Web site, the sponsor must file notice
with the FAA. The intent of these changes is to improve safety and
promote the efficient use of the National Airspace System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://oeaaa.faa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that on average, 3,325 Form 7460-1s would be
filed annually. It is estimated to take 19 minutes, or 0.32 hours, to
fill out each form. Hence, the estimated hour burden is: 0.32 hours x
3,325 = 1,064 hours.
    The average cost for a firm to prepare the form itself is
approximately $40 per form. It is estimated that 20 percent of the
forms filed would be filed this way. Thus, the estimated average annual
reporting burden for companies to process this form in-house would be:
(FAA Form 7460-1) $40 x 665 = $26,600.
    The average cost for a company to outsource this function to a
contractor is approximately $480 per report. It is estimated that 80
percent of the forms filed would be filed this way. Thus, the estimated
average annual reporting burden for companies to outsource this
function is: (FAA Form 7460-1) $480 x 2,660 = $1,276,800.
    It is estimated that roughly 30 percent of firms filing FAA Form
7460-1 will need to perform a site survey to complete the form. The
cost of a site survey is $790. Thus, the estimated annual reporting
burden for companies who require a site survey would be: (FAA Form
7460-1) $790 x 998 = $788,420.
    Hence, the total annual cost to firms that fill out FAA Form 7460-1
is $2,091,820.
    In the proposed rule, the FAA asked for comments on the information
collection burden. You may view the FAA's specific request in the
proposed rule.\8\ The FAA received comments from multiple commenters.
The following is a summary of the comments with the FAA's response:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 71 FR 34028; June 13, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters stated that the FAA underestimated the costs, in
terms of time and paperwork, associated with preparing a Form 7460-1,
as well as the costs of filing an OE notice, so the FAA should revise
its estimates. One commenter surveyed its members and the survey
indicated that the cost of processing a Form 7460-1 in-house was $406
and took about 1.6 hours per form. Further, the average hourly labor
cost was found to be $36 per hour. The commenter also stated that in
addition to maps, a site survey is needed to complete Form 7460-1,
which ensures the accuracy of the location and costs an average of
$768. Another commenter supported the notion of including the cost of a
site survey in the cost estimation for filing a Form 7460-1. Another
commenter suggested that the

FAA increase its estimate for processing a Form 7460-1 in-house to $40.
    The FAA omitted the cost of a site survey in the preliminary
analysis because a site survey is not required to complete a Form 7460-
1. However, a site survey must be completed if it is requested by the
FAA's Flight Procedure Office. The agency has revised the cost analysis
to reflect the wider range of costs as supplied by the commenters. The
FAA also revised its cost and paperwork analyses to include the cost of
filing a form in-house, as well as the costs of a site survey.
    A few commenters claimed that the FAA underestimated the time and
paperwork costs associated with filing additional notices. Another
commenter believed that the FAA underestimated the paperwork burden
that will be placed on radio spectrum users.
    The FAA completed a paperwork reduction package for the proposed
rule, which did show the estimated paperwork costs. The paperwork costs
were also shown in the initial regulatory evaluation and were available
for review in the docket. However, the FAA has elected not to adopt the
radio frequency notice requirements in this final rule. As a result,
there will be no additional paperwork burden placed on radio spectrum
users at this time.
    A commenter stated that requiring applicants to provide notice to
the FAA 60 days in advance could also increase the number of filings
because of the rule change. Another commenter stated that extending the
notice period for all proposed projects will cause undue delay in
securing FAA approval and will delay the ability of utilities to
develop new sites.
    The FAA has reduced the filing time period from 60 days to 45 days.
This should mitigate the delay expected by the commenters and allow
them to continue their operations without much change. Thus, the FAA
does not expect any delays in construction or operational deficiencies
resulting from the final rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no new differences with these proposed regulations.

IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule. Readers seeking greater detail
should read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which is in the
docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
final rule has benefits that justify its costs and is not economically
significant under Executive Order 12866; however, it is otherwise
``significant'' because of concerns raised by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the FAA's evaluation
of potential electromagnetic effect during aeronautical studies. The
final rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade, and will not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, tribal governments, or on the private sector.
    This final rule amends 14 CFR part 77. These amendments refer to
the rules for obstruction evaluation standards, aeronautical studies,
and notice provisions about objects that could create hazards to air
navigation.
    The FAA estimates the cost of this final rule to private industry
will be approximately $20.9 million ($14.1 million, present value) over
the next 10 years. The estimated cost of the final rule to the FAA will
be approximately $18.7 million ($12.6 million, present value) over the
next 10 years. Therefore, the total cost associated with the final rule
will be approximately $39.6 million ($26.8 million, present value) over
the next 10 years.
    The final rule will enhance protection of aircraft approaches from
unknown obstructions and unknown alteration projects on or near private
use airports with FAA-approved instrument approach procedures (IAPs).
The FAA contends that these qualitative benefits justify the costs of
the final rule.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory
and informational requirements to the scale of the business,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.''
To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions. The Act covers a wide range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as
described in the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    While the FAA does not maintain data on the size of businesses that
file notices, the FAA estimates that approximately 40 percent of the OE
notices will be filed by small businesses (comprised of business owners
and private use airport owners) as defined by the Small Business
Administration. Thus, in 2010 when the rule is expected to take effect,
the FAA expects approximately 2,400 more OE notices

will be filed by affected parties. Of those applications filed,
approximately 960 notices are estimated to be filed by small businesses
(using 40 percent assumption).
    For those small businesses that are inexperienced in submitting the
necessary paperwork, the FAA believes they would either hire a
consultant or spend as much as the consultant fee ($480) in staff time
to understand, research, complete, and submit the form(s). For the
purpose of this regulatory flexibility assessment, the FAA assumes that
it will cost all small entities approximately $480 per case to meet the
requirements of part 77.
    It is unlikely that any individual small entity will file more than
three OE notices in a calendar year. As a result, the FAA estimates
that in virtually all cases, the cost of this rule to small businesses
will not exceed $1500 per small entity, a cost the FAA does not
consider significant. Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
will have only a domestic impact and, therefore, will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or
the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.

Appendix A to the Preamble

    Under regulations (49 U.S.C. 44718) prescribed by the Secretary,
if the Secretary decides that constructing or altering a structure
may result in an obstruction of the navigable airspace or an
interference with air navigation facilities and equipment or the
navigable airspace, the Secretary shall conduct an aeronautical
study to decide the extent of any adverse impact on the safe and
efficient use of the airspace, facilities, or equipment. In
conducting the study, the Secretary shall consider factors relevant
to the efficient and effective use of the navigable airspace,
including--
    (A) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures
for aircraft operating under visual flight rules;
    (B) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures
for aircraft operating under instrument flight rules;
    (C) The impact on existing public use airports and aeronautical
facilities;
    (D) The impact on planned public use airports and aeronautical
facilities; and
    (E) The cumulative impact resulting from the proposed
construction or alteration of a structure when combined with the
impact of other existing or proposed structures.

Appendix B to the Preamble

    The NPRM proposed that notice must be filed with the FAA for any
construction of a new, or modification of an existing facility,
i.e.--building, antenna structure, or any other man-made structure,
which supports a radiating element(s) for the purpose of radio
frequency transmissions operating on the following frequencies:

    (i) 54-108 MHz
    (ii) 150-216 MHz
    (iii) 406-430 MHz
    (iv) 931-940 MHz
    (v) 952-960 MHz
    (vi) 1390-1400 MHz
    (vii) 2500-2700 MHz
    (viii) 3700-4200 MHz
    (ix) 5000-5650 MHz
    (x) 5925-6525 MHz
    (xi) 7450-8550 MHz
    (xii) 14.2-14.4 GHz
    (xiii) 21.2-23.6 GHz

    In addition, the NPRM proposed that any changes or modification
to a system operating on one of the previously mentioned frequencies
when specified in the original FAA determination, including:
    (i) Change in the authorized frequency;
    (ii) Addition of new frequencies;
    (iii) Increase in effective radiated power (ERP) equal or
greater than 3 decibels;
    (iv) modification of radiating elements, including: (A) Antenna
mounting locations(s) if increased 100 feet or more irrespective of
whether the overall height is increased; (B) changes in antenna
specification (including gain, beam-width, polarization, pattern);
and (C) change in antenna azimuth/bearing (e.g. point-to-point
microwave systems).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 77

    Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Airspace, Aviation
safety, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

V. The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations by revising
part 77 to read as follows:

PART 77--SAFE, EFFICIENT USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE NAVIGABLE
AIRSPACE

Subpart A--General
Sec.
77.1 Purpose.
77.3 Definitions.
Subpart B--Notice Requirements
77.5 Applicability.
77.7 Form and time of notice.
77.9 Construction or alteration requiring notice.
77.11 Supplemental notice requirements.
Subpart C--Standards for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation or
Navigational Aids or Facilities
77.13 Applicability.
77.15 Scope.
77.17 Obstruction standards.
77.19 Civil airport imaginary surfaces.
77.21 Department of Defense (DOD) airport imaginary surfaces.
77.23 Heliport imaginary surfaces.
Subpart D--Aeronautical Studies and Determinations
77.25 Applicability.
77.27 Initiation of studies.
77.29 Evaluating aeronautical effect.
77.31 Determinations.
77.33 Effective period of determinations.
77.35 Extensions, terminations, revisions and corrections.
Subpart E--Petitions for Discretionary Review
77.37 General.
77.39 Contents of a petition.
77.41 Discretionary review results.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106 (g), 40103, 40113-40114, 44502, 44701,
44718, 46101-46102, 46104.

Subpart A--General

Sec.  77.1  Purpose.

    This part establishes:
    (a) The requirements to provide notice to the FAA of certain
proposed construction, or the alteration of existing structures;
    (b) The standards used to determine obstructions to air navigation,
and navigational and communication facilities;
    (c) The process for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air
navigation or navigational facilities to determine the effect on the
safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, air navigation facilities
or equipment; and
    (d) The process to petition the FAA for discretionary review of
determinations, revisions, and extensions of determinations.

Sec.  77.3  Definitions.

    For the purpose of this part:
    Non-precision instrument runway means a runway having an existing
instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with
only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation equipment, for which
a straight-in non-precision instrument approach procedure has been
approved, or planned, and for which no precision approach facilities
are planned, or indicated on an FAA planning document or military
service military airport planning document.
    Planned or proposed airport is an airport that is the subject of at
least one of the following documents received by the FAA:
    (1) Airport proposals submitted under 14 CFR part 157.
    (2) Airport Improvement Program requests for aid.
    (3) Notices of existing airports where prior notice of the airport
construction or alteration was not provided as required by 14 CFR part
157.
    (4) Airport layout plans.
    (5) DOD proposals for airports used only by the U.S. Armed Forces.
    (6) DOD proposals on joint-use (civil-military) airports.
    (7) Completed airport site selection feasibility study.
    Precision instrument runway means a runway having an existing
instrument approach procedure utilizing an Instrument Landing System
(ILS), or a Precision Approach Radar (PAR). It also means a runway for
which a precision approach system is planned and is so indicated by an
FAA-approved airport layout plan; a military service approved military
airport layout plan; any other FAA planning document, or military
service military airport planning document.
    Public use airport is an airport available for use by the general
public without a requirement for prior approval of the airport owner or
operator.
    Seaplane base is considered to be an airport only if its sea lanes
are outlined by visual markers.
    Utility runway means a runway that is constructed for and intended
to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross
weight and less.
    Visual runway means a runway intended solely for the operation of
aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight-in
instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated
on an FAA-approved airport layout plan, a military service approved
military airport layout plan, or by any planning document submitted to
the FAA by competent authority.

Subpart B--Notice Requirements

Sec.  77.5  Applicability.

    (a) If you propose any construction or alteration described in
Sec.  77.9, you must provide adequate notice to the FAA of that
construction or alteration.
    (b) If requested by the FAA, you must also file supplemental notice
before the start date and upon completion of certain construction or
alterations that are described in Sec.  77.9.
    (c) Notice received by the FAA under this subpart is used to:
    (1) Evaluate the effect of the proposed construction or alteration
on safety in air commerce and the efficient use and preservation of the
navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public use
airports;
    (2) Determine whether the effect of proposed construction or
alteration is a hazard to air navigation;
    (3) Determine appropriate marking and lighting recommendations,
using FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1, Obstruction Marking and
Lighting;
    (4) Determine other appropriate measures to be applied for
continued safety of air navigation; and

    (5) Notify the aviation community of the construction or alteration
of objects that affect the navigable airspace, including the revision
of charts, when necessary.

Sec.  77.7  Form and time of notice.

    (a) If you are required to file notice under Sec.  77.9, you must
submit to the FAA a completed FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed
Construction or Alteration. FAA Form 7460-1 is available at FAA
regional offices and on the Internet.
    (b) You must submit this form at least 45 days before the start
date of the proposed construction or alteration or the date an
application for a construction permit is filed, whichever is earliest.
    (c) If you propose construction or alteration that is also subject
to the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), you must submit notice to the FAA on or before the date that the
application is filed with the FCC.
    (d) If you propose construction or alteration to an existing
structure that exceeds 2,000 ft. in height above ground level (AGL),
the FAA presumes it to be a hazard to air navigation that results in an
inefficient use of airspace. You must include details explaining both
why the proposal would not constitute a hazard to air navigation and
why it would not cause an inefficient use of airspace.
    (e) The 45-day advance notice requirement is waived if immediate
construction or alteration is required because of an emergency
involving essential public services, public health, or public safety.
You may provide notice to the FAA by any available, expeditious means.
You must file a completed FAA Form 7460-1 within 5 days of the initial
notice to the FAA. Outside normal business hours, the nearest flight
service station will accept emergency notices.

Sec.  77.9  Construction or alteration requiring notice.

    If requested by the FAA, or if you propose any of the following
types of construction or alteration, you must file notice with the FAA
of:
    (a) Any construction or alteration that is more than 200 ft. AGL at
its site.
    (b) Any construction or alteration that exceeds an imaginary
surface extending outward and upward at any of the following slopes:
    (1) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 ft. from the
nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport described in
paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway more than 3,200
ft. in actual length, excluding heliports.
    (2) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 ft. from the
nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport described in
paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway no more than
3,200 ft. in actual length, excluding heliports.
    (3) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 ft. from the nearest
point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport
described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile
objects, of a height which, if adjusted upward 17 feet for an
Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and
Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of
17 feet vertical distance, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10
feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally
traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road, 23 feet
for a railroad, and for a waterway or any other traverse way not
previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest
mobile object that would normally traverse it, would exceed a standard
of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
    (d) Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports
and heliports:
    (1) A public use airport listed in the Airport/Facility Directory,
Alaska Supplement, or Pacific Chart Supplement of the U.S. Government
Flight Information Publications;
    (2) A military airport under construction, or an airport under
construction that will be available for public use;
    (3) An airport operated by a Federal agency or the DOD.
    (4) An airport or heliport with at least one FAA-approved
instrument approach procedure.
    (e) You do not need to file notice for construction or alteration
of:
    (1) Any object that will be shielded by existing structures of a
permanent and substantial nature or by natural terrain or topographic
features of equal or greater height, and will be located in the
congested area of a city, town, or settlement where the shielded
structure will not adversely affect safety in air navigation;
    (2) Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing
aid, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device meeting FAA-
approved siting criteria or an appropriate military service siting
criteria on military airports, the location and height of which are
fixed by its functional purpose;
    (3) Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by
any other FAA regulation.
    (4) Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height, except one
that would increase the height of another antenna structure.

Sec.  77.11  Supplemental notice requirements.

    (a) You must file supplemental notice with the FAA when:
    (1) The construction or alteration is more than 200 feet in height
AGL at its site; or
    (2) Requested by the FAA.
    (b) You must file supplemental notice on a prescribed FAA form to
be received within the time limits specified in the FAA determination.
If no time limit has been specified, you must submit supplemental
notice of construction to the FAA within 5 days after the structure
reaches its greatest height.
    (c) If you abandon a construction or alteration proposal that
requires supplemental notice, you must submit notice to the FAA within
5 days after the project is abandoned.
    (d) If the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed,
you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction
or alteration is dismantled or destroyed.

Subpart C--Standards for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation
or Navigational Aids or Facilities

Sec.  77.13  Applicability.

    This subpart describes the standards used for determining
obstructions to air navigation, navigational aids, or navigational
facilities. These standards apply to the following:
    (a) Any object of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or
temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials
used and any permanent or temporary apparatus.
    (b) The alteration of any permanent or temporary existing structure
by a change in its height, including appurtenances, or lateral
dimensions, including equipment or material used therein.

Sec.  77.15  Scope.

    (a) This subpart describes standards used to determine obstructions
to air navigation that may affect the safe and efficient use of
navigable airspace and the operation of planned or existing air
navigation and communication facilities. Such facilities include air
navigation aids, communication equipment, airports, Federal airways,
instrument approach or departure procedures, and approved off-airway
routes.
    (b) Objects that are considered obstructions under the standards

described in this subpart are presumed hazards to air navigation unless
further aeronautical study concludes that the object is not a hazard.
Once further aeronautical study has been initiated, the FAA will use
the standards in this subpart, along with FAA policy and guidance
material, to determine if the object is a hazard to air navigation.
    (c) The FAA will apply these standards with reference to an
existing airport facility, and airport proposals received by the FAA,
or the appropriate military service, before it issues a final
determination.
    (d) For airports having defined runways with specially prepared
hard surfaces, the primary surface for each runway extends 200 feet
beyond each end of the runway. For airports having defined strips or
pathways used regularly for aircraft takeoffs and landings, and
designated runways, without specially prepared hard surfaces, each end
of the primary surface for each such runway shall coincide with the
corresponding end of the runway. At airports, excluding seaplane bases,
having a defined landing and takeoff area with no defined pathways for
aircraft takeoffs and landings, a determination must be made as to
which portions of the landing and takeoff area are regularly used as
landing and takeoff pathways. Those determined pathways must be
considered runways, and an appropriate primary surface as defined in
Sec.  77.19 will be considered as longitudinally centered on each such
runway. Each end of that primary surface must coincide with the
corresponding end of that runway.
    (e) The standards in this subpart apply to construction or
alteration proposals on an airport (including heliports and seaplane
bases with marked lanes) if that airport is one of the following before
the issuance of the final determination:
    (1) Available for public use and is listed in the Airport/Facility
Directory, Supplement Alaska, or Supplement Pacific of the U.S.
Government Flight Information Publications; or
    (2) A planned or proposed airport or an airport under construction
of which the FAA has received actual notice, except DOD airports, where
there is a clear indication the airport will be available for public
use; or,
    (3) An airport operated by a Federal agency or the DOD; or,
    (4) An airport that has at least one FAA-approved instrument
approach.

Sec.  77.17  Obstruction standards.

    (a) An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future
object would be an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater
height than any of the following heights or surfaces:
    (1) A height of 499 feet AGL at the site of the object.
    (2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport
elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the
established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with
its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that
height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional
nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet.
    (3) A height within a terminal obstacle clearance area, including
an initial approach segment, a departure area, and a circling approach
area, which would result in the vertical distance between any point on
the object and an established minimum instrument flight altitude within
that area or segment to be less than the required obstacle clearance.
    (4) A height within an en route obstacle clearance area, including
turn and termination areas, of a Federal Airway or approved off-airway
route, that would increase the minimum obstacle clearance altitude.
    (5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any
imaginary surface established under Sec.  77.19, 77.21, or 77.23.
However, no part of the takeoff or landing area itself will be
considered an obstruction.
    (b) Except for traverse ways on or near an airport with an
operative ground traffic control service furnished by an airport
traffic control tower or by the airport management and coordinated with
the air traffic control service, the standards of paragraph (a) of this
section apply to traverse ways used or to be used for the passage of
mobile objects only after the heights of these traverse ways are
increased by:
    (1) 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National
System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are
designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance.
    (2) 15 feet for any other public roadway.
    (3) 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would
normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road.
    (4) 23 feet for a railroad.
    (5) For a waterway or any other traverse way not previously
mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object
that would normally traverse it.

Sec.  77.19  Civil airport imaginary surfaces.

    The following civil airport imaginary surfaces are established with
relation to the airport and to each runway. The size of each such
imaginary surface is based on the category of each runway according to
the type of approach available or planned for that runway. The slope
and dimensions of the approach surface applied to each end of a runway
are determined by the most precise approach procedure existing or
planned for that runway end.
    (a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the
established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by
SW.inging arcs of a specified radii from the center of each end of the
primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the
adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc
is:
    (1) 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility or visual;
    (2) 10,000 feet for all other runways. The radius of the arc
specified for each end of a runway will have the same arithmetical
value. That value will be the highest determined for either end of the
runway. When a 5,000-foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two
adjacent 10,000-foot arcs, the 5,000-foot arc shall be disregarded on
the construction of the perimeter of the horizontal surface.
    (b) Conical surface. A surface extending outward and upward from
the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a
horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
    (c) Primary surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway.
When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary
surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway; but when the
runway has no specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface ends
at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary
surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway
centerline. The width of the primary surface is:
    (1) 250 feet for utility runways having only visual approaches.
    (2) 500 feet for utility runways having non-precision instrument
approaches.
    (3) For other than utility runways, the width is:
    (i) 500 feet for visual runways having only visual approaches.
    (ii) 500 feet for non-precision instrument runways having
visibility minimums greater than three-fourths statue mile.
    (iii) 1,000 feet for a non-precision instrument runway having a
non-precision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as
three-fourths of a statute mile, and for precision instrument runways.

    (iv) The width of the primary surface of a runway will be that
width prescribed in this section for the most precise approach existing
or planned for either end of that runway.
    (d) Approach surface. A surface longitudinally centered on the
extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each
end of the primary surface. An approach surface is applied to each end
of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for
that runway end.
    (1) The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the
primary surface and it expands uniformly to a width of:
    (i) 1,250 feet for that end of a utility runway with only visual
approaches;
    (ii) 1,500 feet for that end of a runway other than a utility
runway with only visual approaches;
    (iii) 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a non-
precision instrument approach;
    (iv) 3,500 feet for that end of a non-precision instrument runway
other than utility, having visibility minimums greater that three-
fourths of a statute mile;
    (v) 4,000 feet for that end of a non-precision instrument runway,
other than utility, having a non-precision instrument approach with
visibility minimums as low as three-fourths statute mile; and
    (vi) 16,000 feet for precision instrument runways.
    (2) The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of:
    (i) 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for all utility and visual
runways;
    (ii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1 for all non-precision
instrument runways other than utility; and
    (iii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 to 1 with an additional 40,000
feet at a slope of 40 to 1 for all precision instrument runways.
    (3) The outer width of an approach surface to an end of a runway
will be that width prescribed in this subsection for the most precise
approach existing or planned for that runway end.
    (e) Transitional surface. These surfaces extend outward and upward
at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline
extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and
from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces for
those portions of the precision approach surface which project through
and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of
5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface
and at right angles to the runway centerline.

Sec.  77.21  Department of Defense (DOD) airport imaginary surfaces.

    (a) Related to airport reference points. These surfaces apply to
all military airports. For the purposes of this section, a military
airport is any airport operated by the DOD.
    (1) Inner horizontal surface. A plane that is oval in shape at a
height of 150 feet above the established airfield elevation. The plane
is constructed by scribing an arc with a radius of 7,500 feet about the
centerline at the end of each runway and interconnecting these arcs
with tangents.
    (2) Conical surface. A surface extending from the periphery of the
inner horizontal surface outward and upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a
horizontal distance of 7,000 feet to a height of 500 feet above the
established airfield elevation.
    (3) Outer horizontal surface. A plane, located 500 feet above the
established airfield elevation, extending outward from the outer
periphery of the conical surface for a horizontal distance of 30,000
feet.
    (b) Related to runways. These surfaces apply to all military
airports.
    (1) Primary surface. A surface located on the ground or water
longitudinally centered on each runway with the same length as the
runway. The width of the primary surface for runways is 2,000 feet.
However, at established bases where substantial construction has taken
place in accordance with a previous lateral clearance criteria, the
2,000-foot width may be reduced to the former criteria.
    (2) Clear zone surface. A surface located on the ground or water at
each end of the primary surface, with a length of 1,000 feet and the
same width as the primary surface.
    (3) Approach clearance surface. An inclined plane, symmetrical
about the runway centerline extended, beginning 200 feet beyond each
end of the primary surface at the centerline elevation of the runway
end and extending for 50,000 feet. The slope of the approach clearance
surface is 50 to 1 along the runway centerline extended until it
reaches an elevation of 500 feet above the established airport
elevation. It then continues horizontally at this elevation to a point
50,000 feet from the point of beginning. The width of this surface at
the runway end is the same as the primary surface, it flares uniformly,
and the width at 50,000 is 16,000 feet.
    (4) Transitional surfaces. These surfaces connect the primary
surfaces, the first 200 feet of the clear zone surfaces, and the
approach clearance surfaces to the inner horizontal surface, conical
surface, outer horizontal surface or other transitional surfaces. The
slope of the transitional surface is 7 to 1 outward and upward at right
angles to the runway centerline.

Sec.  77.23  Heliport imaginary surfaces.

    (a) Primary surface. The area of the primary surface coincides in
size and shape with the designated take-off and landing area. This
surface is a horizontal plane at the elevation of the established
heliport elevation.
    (b) Approach surface. The approach surface begins at each end of
the heliport primary surface with the same width as the primary
surface, and extends outward and upward for a horizontal distance of
4,000 feet where its width is 500 feet. The slope of the approach
surface is 8 to 1 for civil heliports and 10 to 1 for military
heliports.
    (c) Transitional surfaces. These surfaces extend outward and upward
from the lateral boundaries of the primary surface and from the
approach surfaces at a slope of 2 to 1 for a distance of 250 feet
measured horizontally from the centerline of the primary and approach
surfaces.

Subpart D--Aeronautical Studies and Determinations

Sec.  77.25  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to any aeronautical study of a proposed
construction or alteration for which notice to the FAA is required
under Sec.  77.9.
    (b) The purpose of an aeronautical study is to determine whether
the aeronautical effects of the specific proposal and, where
appropriate, the cumulative impact resulting from the proposed
construction or alteration when combined with the effects of other
existing or proposed structures, would constitute a hazard to air
navigation.
    (c) The obstruction standards in subpart C of this part are
supplemented by other manuals and directives used in determining the
effect on the navigable airspace of a proposed construction or
alteration. When the FAA needs additional information, it may circulate
a study to interested parties for comment.

Sec.  77.27  Initiation of studies.

    The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study when:
    (a) Requested by the sponsor of any proposed construction or
alteration for which a notice is submitted; or
    (b) The FAA determines a study is necessary.

Sec.  77.29  Evaluating aeronautical effect.

    (a) The FAA conducts an aeronautical study to determine the impact
of a proposed structure, an existing structure that has not yet been
studied by the FAA, or an alteration of an existing structure on
aeronautical operations, procedures, and the safety of flight. These
studies include evaluating:
    (1) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for
aircraft operating under visual flight rules;
    (2) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for
aircraft operating under instrument flight rules;
    (3) The impact on existing and planned public use airports;
    (4) Airport traffic capacity of existing public use airports and
public use airport development plans received before the issuance of
the final determination;
    (5) Minimum obstacle clearance altitudes, minimum instrument flight
rules altitudes, approved or planned instrument approach procedures,
and departure procedures;
    (6) The potential effect on ATC radar, direction finders, ATC tower
line-of-sight visibility, and physical or electromagnetic effects on
air navigation, communication facilities, and other surveillance
systems;
    (7) The aeronautical effects resulting from the cumulative impact
of a proposed construction or alteration of a structure when combined
with the effects of other existing or proposed structures.
    (b) If you withdraw the proposed construction or alteration or
revise it so that it is no longer identified as an obstruction, or if
no further aeronautical study is necessary, the FAA may terminate the
study.

Sec.  77.31  Determinations.

    (a) The FAA will issue a determination stating whether the proposed
construction or alteration would be a hazard to air navigation, and
will advise all known interested persons.
    (b) The FAA will make determinations based on the aeronautical
study findings and will identify the following:
    (1) The effects on VFR/IFR aeronautical departure/arrival
operations, air traffic procedures, minimum flight altitudes, and
existing, planned, or proposed airports listed in Sec.  77.15(e) of
which the FAA has received actual notice prior to issuance of a final
determination.
    (2) The extent of the physical and/or electromagnetic effect on the
operation of existing or proposed air navigation facilities,
communication aids, or surveillance systems.
    (c) The FAA will issue a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation
when the aeronautical study concludes that the proposed construction or
alteration will exceed an obstruction standard and would have a
substantial aeronautical impact.
    (d) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation will be issued
when the aeronautical study concludes that the proposed construction or
alteration will exceed an obstruction standard but would not have a
substantial aeronautical impact to air navigation. A Determination of
No Hazard to Air Navigation may include the following:
    (1) Conditional provisions of a determination.
    (2) Limitations necessary to minimize potential problems, such as
the use of temporary construction equipment.
    (3) Supplemental notice requirements, when required.
    (4) Marking and lighting recommendations, as appropriate.
    (e) The FAA will issue a Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation when a proposed structure does not exceed any of the
obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation.

Sec.  77.33  Effective period of determinations.

    (a) A determination issued under this subpart is effective 40 days
after the date of issuance, unless a petition for discretionary review
is received by the FAA within 30 days after issuance. The determination
will not become final pending disposition of a petition for
discretionary review.
    (b) Unless extended, revised, or terminated, each Determination of
No Hazard to Air Navigation issued under this subpart expires 18 months
after the effective date of the determination, or on the date the
proposed construction or alteration is abandoned, whichever is earlier.
    (c) A Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation has no expiration
date.

Sec.  77.35  Extensions, terminations, revisions and corrections.

    (a) You may petition the FAA official that issued the Determination
of No Hazard to Air Navigation to revise or reconsider the
determination based on new facts or to extend the effective period of
the determination, provided that:
    (1) Actual structural work of the proposed construction or
alteration, such as the laying of a foundation, but not including
excavation, has not been started; and
    (2) The petition is submitted at least 15 days before the
expiration date of the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.
    (b) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued for those
construction or alteration proposals not requiring an FCC construction
permit may be extended by the FAA one time for a period not to exceed
18 months.
    (c) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued for a
proposal requiring an FCC construction permit may be granted extensions
for up to 18 months, provided that:
    (1) You submit evidence that an application for a construction
permit/license was filed with the FCC for the associated site within 6
months of issuance of the determination; and
    (2) You submit evidence that additional time is warranted because
of FCC requirements; and
    (3) Where the FCC issues a construction permit, a final
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation is effective until the
date prescribed by the FCC for completion of the construction. If an
extension of the original FCC completion date is needed, an extension
of the FAA determination must be requested from the Obstruction
Evaluation Service (OES).
    (4) If the Commission refuses to issue a construction permit, the
final determination expires on the date of its refusal.

Subpart E--Petitions for Discretionary Review

Sec.  77.37  General.

    (a) If you are the sponsor, provided a substantive aeronautical
comment on a proposal in an aeronautical study, or have a substantive
aeronautical comment on the proposal but were not given an opportunity
to state it, you may petition the FAA for a discretionary review of a
determination, revision, or extension of a determination issued by the
FAA.
    (b) You may not file a petition for discretionary review for a
Determination of No Hazard that is issued for a temporary structure,
marking and lighting recommendation, or when a proposed structure or
alteration does not exceed obstruction standards contained in subpart C
of this part.

Sec.  77.39  Contents of a petition.

    (a) You must file a petition for discretionary review in writing
and it must be received by the FAA within 30 days after the issuance of
a determination under Sec.  77.31, or a revision or extension of the
determination under Sec.  77.35.
    (b) The petition must contain a full statement of the aeronautical
basis on

which the petition is made, and must include new information or facts
not previously considered or presented during the aeronautical study,
including valid aeronautical reasons why the determination, revisions,
or extension made by the FAA should be reviewed.
    (c) In the event that the last day of the 30-day filing period
falls on a weekend or a day the Federal government is closed, the last
day of the filing period is the next day that the government is open.
    (d) The FAA will inform the petitioner or sponsor (if other than
the petitioner) and the FCC (whenever an FCC-related proposal is
involved) of the filing of the petition and that the determination is
not final pending disposition of the petition.

Sec.  77.41  Discretionary review results.

    (a) If discretionary review is granted, the FAA will inform the
petitioner and the sponsor (if other than the petitioner) of the issues
to be studied and reviewed. The review may include a request for
comments and a review of all records from the initial aeronautical
study.
    (b) If discretionary review is denied, the FAA will notify the
petitioner and the sponsor (if other than the petitioner), and the FCC,
whenever a FCC-related proposal is involved, of the basis for the
denial along with a statement that the determination is final.
    (c) After concluding the discretionary review process, the FAA will
revise, affirm, or reverse the determination.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2010.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-17767 Filed 7-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39880-39882]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0512]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chevron Oil Company Canal,
Fourchon, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the State Route (SR) 3090 Bridge, mile 0.05, across the
Chevron Oil Company Canal, at Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, LA. The
drawbridge was removed in May 7, 2018 and the operating regulation is
no longer applicable or necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective August 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0512. In the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Donna Gagliano, Bridge Branch Office, Eighth
District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
SR State Road

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because the State Route (SR) 3090
Bridge, mile 0.05, across the Chevron Oil Company Canal, at Fourchon,
Lafourche Parish, LA (SR 3090 Bridge), that once required draw
operations in 33 CFR 117.437, was removed from the waterway. Therefore,
the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from
publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this
regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on
mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or
value.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the
preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
    On May 7, 2018, the SR 3090 Bridge, mile 0.05, across the Chevron
Oil

Company Canal, at Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, LA was removed in its
entirety. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the
governing regulation for this drawbridge was never removed subsequent
to the removal of the drawbridge completion. The elimination of this
drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation
regulation, 33 CFR 117.437, which pertained to the former drawbridge.
    The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.437 that refers to
the Chevron Oil Company Canal, SR 3090 Bridge, mile 0.05, from the Code
of Federal Regulations because it governs a bridge that is no longer in
existence.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is removing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.437 and
the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge
that is no longer in existence. This change does not affect waterway or
land traffic.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the
bridge was removed from the waterway and no longer operates as a
drawbridge. The removal of the operating schedule from 33 CFR 117
Subpart B will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land
traffic.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    For the reasons stated in section IV.A above this final rule would
not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply removes the operating regulations or
procedures for a drawbridge no longer in existence. This action is
categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the
Record are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

Sec.  117.437   [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  117.437.

    Dated: July 30, 2018.
Paul F. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-17271 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P