[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65224]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0449; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-38-AD;
Amendment 39-16456; AD 2010-20-21]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Model A109E Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to the products
listed above. The AD number, as shown in the PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES section, is incorrect. This document corrects that error. In
all other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Mark Wiley,
ASW-111, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations
and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This AD, Amendment 39-16456 (75 FR 61341,
October 5, 2010), requires modifying the fuselage electrical
installation and the overhead panel electrical installation for Agusta
S.p.A. Model A109E helicopters.
    As published, the AD number shown in the third column on Federal
Register page 61342 under item 2. of PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
section is incorrect. The AD number shown is ``2020-20-21;'' the
correct AD number should be ``2010-20-21.''
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been
changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being
published in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains November 9, 2010.

Correction of Regulatory Text

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

    In the Federal Register document 2010-24723, filed October 4, 2010
and published on October 5, 2010 (75 FR 61341), on page 61342, in the
third column, under ``Sec.  39.13 [Amended],'' the AD number is
corrected to read as follows:

2010-20-21 AGUSTA S.p.A.: Amendment 39-16456; Docket No. FAA-2010-
0449; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-38-AD.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 12, 2010.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-26569 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72510]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3598-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Maine; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Maine (FEMA-3598-EM), dated September 14,
2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 14, 2023, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of
Maine resulting from Hurricane Lee during the period of September 15
to September 17, 2023, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency
exists in the State of Maine.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance and reimbursement
for mass care, including evacuation and sheltering support, under
the Public Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William
F. Roy, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Maine have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Androscoggin, Aroostook, Cumberland, Franklin, Hancock,
Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Sagadahoc,
Somerset, Waldo, Washington, and York Counties for emergency
protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal
assistance and reimbursement for mass care, including evacuation and
sheltering support, under the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23181 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 1 of 11 Title Petition to Establish a Temporary Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 Insecticidal Protein and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production in Corn When Used as Plant incorporated Protectant in Food and Feed Commodities of Field Corn, Sweet Corn, and Popcorn Volume 1 of 1 Author N. N. Bogdanova, D. V. M.

Date June 28, 2005 Submitted By Monsanto Company 1300 I ( Eye) Street, NW Suite 450 East Washington, DC 20005 Monsanto Reference No.

04 CR 138E 1 Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 2 of 11 Table of Contents Page Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 Section A. The name, chemical identity, and composition of the plant incorporated protectant...................................................................... 4 Section B. The amount, frequency, and time of application of the plant incorporated protectant...................................................................... 5 Section C. Full reports on investigations made with respect to the safety of the plant incorporated protectant.................................................. 6 Section D. The results of tests on the amount of plant incorporated protectant remaining, including a description of the analytical method used ............... 7 Section E. Practical methods for removing plant incorporated protectant that exceeds any proposed tolerance........................................................... 8 Section F. Proposed tolerances for the plant incorporated protectant if tolerances are proposed........................................................................... 9 Section G. Reasonable grounds in support of this petition .......................................... 10 Attachment I. Applicant's notice of filing summary ........................................................ 11 Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 3 of 11 Introduction On May 11, 2001, the EPA granted a time limited exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the plant incorporated protectant, Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in food and feed commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn ( corn event MON 840 [ vector ZMBK28]), and in cotton, cotton seed, cotton oil, cotton meal, cotton hay, cotton hulls, cotton forage, and cotton gin byproducts when applied/ used as plant pesticide ( 40 CFR § 180.1215). Development of MON 840 has since been discontinued and that time limited exemption expired on May 1, 2004.

Subsequently Monsanto has developed a second generation insect protected corn, vector ZMIR245, that provides activity against an increased spectrum of lepidopteran insect pests. Corn developed from vector ZMIR245 produces two insecticidal proteins, Cry1A. 105 and Cry2Ab2. The combination of Cry1A. 105 and Cry2Ab2 in a single plant allows better insect control and offers a tool for management of potential insect resistance. The Cry2Ab2 protein and its expression cassette in ZMIR245 are identical to those in MON 840.

By way of this petition, Monsanto is requesting that EPA establish a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the Cry2Ab2 in corn as part of an Experimental Use Permit 524 EUP OT. The results of product safety studies already submitted to and reviewed by EPA support this petition. A summary of the results of these studies has been prepared in accordance with the formatting guidelines delineated in PR Notice 97 1. Monsanto consents to publication of this summary as part of the Agency's notice of filing in the Federal Register and as part of the proposed or final regulation.

Petitioner:

__________________________________ Natalia N. Bogdanova, D. V. M. Regulatory Affairs Manager Monsanto Company Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 4 of 11 Section A: The name, chemical identity, and composition of the plant incorporated protectant The Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki protein Cry2Ab2 when used as plant incorporated protectant is the subject of this tolerance exemption petition. This exemption would include the genetic material necessary for production of Cry2Ab2 in all food and feed commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn.

The nomenclature for the Cry2Ab2 protein has changed over the past years. This protein has been referred to as Cry2Ab, Cry2Ab2, Insect Protected Protein 2 ( IPP2), and B. t. k. P2. Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 5 of 11 Section B: The amount, frequency, and time of application of the plant incorporated protectant Because the Cry2Ab2 is a plant incorporated protectant, it is not applied to plants. The protein has been found to be present in corn plants throughout their development and in all tissues. Levels of Cry2Ab2 in corn tissues previously reviewed by the Agency are described in the report listed below.

MRID 450863 06 Tonnu, B P., J. C. Jennings, and R. P. Lirette. 2000. Insect protection protein 2 and NPTII levels in samples collected from corn event MON 840 in 1998 US field trials.

Levels of the Cry2Ab2 protein in corn events derived from the vector ZMIR245 are as follows:

Tissue Cry2Ab2 levels ( µ g/ g dry weight) Leaf 27  93 Pollen < LOQ1 Grain 1.4  3 Forage 33  100 1 Limit of Quantitation for the Cry2Ab2 ELISA is 0.10 µ g/ g/ dwt. Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 6 of 11 Section C: Full reports of investigations made with respect to the safety of the plantincorporated protectant Monsanto has submitted data that establish the food safety of Cry2Ab2 protein when used as a plant incorporated protectant. These data are summarized in the attached Applicant's Notice of Filing Summary.

The following studies have been reviewed and found acceptable by the Agency:

MRID Toxicity 449666 02 Bechtel, C. L. 1999. Acute oral toxicity study of insect protection protein 2 ( IPP2) in mice.

Digestive Fate 449666 03 Leach, J. N., R. E. Hileman, J. W. Martin, M. A. Nemeth, and J. D. Astwood. 1999. Assessment of the in vitro digestibility of insect protection protein 2 ( IPP2) utilizing mammalian digestive fate models.

Allergenicity 449666 04 Hileman, R. E. and J. D. Astwood. 1999. Bioinformatics analysis of insect protection protein 2 ( IPP2) sequence utilizing an allergen database.

449666 05 Hileman, R. E. and J. D. Astwood. 1999. Bioinformatics evaluation of insect protection protein 2 ( IPP2) sequence utilizing toxin and public domain genetic databases. Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 7 of 11 Section D: The results of tests on the amount of plant incorporated protectant remaining, including a description of the analytical method used Another analytical method should not be required because this petition requests a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. In addition, an analytical method for detection of the Cry2Ab2 proteins is available commercially, 2 and a Monsanto validated analytical method has also been submitted previously to EPA:

MRID 454154 01 Kolwyck, D., K. Gustafson, and T. B. Stone. 2001. Validated method for extraction and direct ELISA analysis of Cry2Ab2 in corn grain.

2 QuickStixTM Combo Kit, Envirologix, Cat. # AS 012 LS Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 8 of 11 Section E: Practical methods for removing plant incorporated protectant that exceeds any proposed tolerance Such a method is not required because a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is being sought. Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 9 of 11 Section F: Proposed tolerances for the plant incorporated protectant if tolerances are proposed A temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is being sought for Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in food and feed commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn.

Monsanto proposes that 40 CFR § 180 be revised as follows:

§ 180. XXXX. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material for its production in corn; temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as plant incorporated protectant in food and feed commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn. " Genetic material necessary for its production" means the genetic material encoding the Cry2Ab2 protein and its regulatory regions. " Regulatory regions" are the genetic material, such as promoters, terminators, and enhancers that control the expression of the genetic material encoding the Cry2Ab2 protein. Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 10 of 11 Section G: Reasonable grounds in support of this petition.

Reasonable grounds to support this petition for a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in food and feed commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn when used as plant incorporated protectant are presented in Section C. This temporary tolerance exemption is required for field testing of ZMIR245 lepidopteranprotected corn. Monsanto Company 04 CR 138E 1 Page 11 of 11 Attachment I. Applicant's Notice of Filing Summary A summary of this pesticide petition for a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in food and feed commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn has been combined with the petition requesting establishment of a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Bt Cry1A. 105 insecticidal protein, which was submitted to EPA on January 31, 2005. Monsanto consents to the use of all or part of this summary by the Agency in preparing the notice of filing and the proposed or final regulation.

An electronic copy of this petition summary in Word format is also being provided on a CDROM disk.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 41 (Thursday, March 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12554-12556]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04060]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0500; FRL-10018-04--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; KY; Removal of Asbestos Requirements From
Jefferson County Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
correct the erroneous incorporation of asbestos National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements into the
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The continued presence of the asbestos requirements in the
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP is inappropriate and
potentially confusing and thus problematic for affected sources, the
Commonwealth, local agencies, and EPA. EPA is proposing to remove the
asbestos requirements because these requirements are not related to the
attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) and are therefore unrelated to the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ``Act'') requirements for SIPs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0500 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9089. Mr. Akers can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit to EPA
a SIP to ensure that state air quality meets the NAAQS. These ambient
air quality standards currently address six criteria pollutants: Carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide. Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin through air pollution
regulations and control strategies. EPA-approved SIP regulations and
control strategies are federally enforceable.
    On October 23, 2001 (66 FR 53658), EPA approved revisions to the
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP,\1\

which included miscellaneous rule revisions and the recodification of
Air Pollution Control District (APCD) of Jefferson County regulations.
These revisions were submitted to EPA on May 21, 1999, by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky on behalf of Jefferson County. Among these
revisions were requirements for permitting the demolition and
renovation of facilities with asbestos, in accordance with 40 CFR part
61, subpart M, ``National Emission Standard for Asbestos.'' The
asbestos requirements were adopted by Jefferson County in paragraphs
1.3, 5.3, and 5.6 of Regulation 2.03 ``Permit Requirements, Non-Title V
Construction and Operating Permits and Demolition/Renovation Permits,''
and this regulation was part of the recodified rules included in the
May 21, 1999 submittal. In the October 23, 2001, final rule, EPA
inadvertently incorporated the asbestos requirements in Regulation 2.03
``Permit Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating Permits
and Demolition/Renovation Permits'' into the Jefferson County portion
of the Kentucky SIP. The version of the rules incorporated into the SIP
were effective in Jefferson County on December 15, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County
governments merged and the ``Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
District'' was renamed the ``Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District.'' See The History of Air Pollution Control in Louisville,
available at https://louisvilleky.gov/government/air-pollution-control-district/history-air-pollution-control-louisville. However,
each of the regulations in the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP still has the subheading ``Air Pollution Control
District of Jefferson County.'' Thus, to be consistent with the
terminology used in the SIP, EPA refers throughout this notice to
regulations contained in the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP as the ``Jefferson County'' regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to
make corrections to prior SIP actions that are subsequently found to be
in error in the same manner as the prior action, and to do so without
requiring any further submission from the State.\2\ While section
110(k)(6) provides EPA with the authority to correct its own ``error,''
nowhere does this provision or any other provision in the CAA define
what qualifies as ``error.'' Thus, EPA believes that the term should be
given its plain language, everyday meaning, which includes all
unintentional, incorrect or wrong actions or mistakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 110(k)(6) states that ``Whenever the Administrator
determines that the Administrator's action approving, disapproving,
or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area
designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification was
in error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval,
disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate
without requiring any further submission from the State. Such
determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State
and public.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The May 21, 1999, submission contained changes to Regulation 2.03
``Permit Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating Permits
and Demolition/Renovation Permits'' that contain asbestos requirements
in paragraphs 1.3, 5.3 and 5.6. EPA's October 23, 2001, approval of
these requirements into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky
SIP was in error. These paragraphs are appropriate for state and local
agencies to adopt and implement, but it is not necessary or appropriate
to incorporate them into the applicable SIP because asbestos
requirements are not related to the attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. EPA is therefore proposing to remove these paragraphs from the
SIP.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. Specifically, EPA is proposing to
remove sections 1.3, 5.3, and 5.6 (asbestos requirements) of Regulation
2.03 ``Permit Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating
Permits and Demolition/Renovation Permits'' from the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP, which is incorporated by reference in
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5. The remainder of Regulation
2.03 ``Permit Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating
Permits and Demolition/Renovation Permits'' will remain incorporated in
the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to remove paragraphs 1.3, 5.3, and 5.6 of APCD
Regulation 2.03 ``Permit Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and
Operating Permits and Demolition/Renovation Permits'' from the
Jefferson County portion of the SIP because they are not related to the
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action
merely corrects errors in a previous rulemaking approving a SIP
submission and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 23, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-04060 Filed 3-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


FACT SHEET DANE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT Madison, Wisconsin WPDES Permit No. WI 0048747 02 October 3, 2001 GENERAL DESCRIPTION:

Dane County Regional Airport is 2,150 acres in size and is served by a storm sewer system consisting of about 14 miles of separate storm sewers, of which 25% are perforated to serve as an underdrain. Runoff from rain and snow melt at the airport can contain glycol and other chemicals used to deice or anti ice aircraft and runways, and other pollutants from industrial activities at the airport. Deicing and anti icing activities are mandatory requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure adequate safety for airport operations. The glycol is a problem because of its high biochemical oxygen demand, which depletes the dissolved oxygen in the receiving water, and aquatic toxicity. Estimated glycol usage averages 50,000 gallons per year ( undiluted). The trend in the kind of glycol has shifted toward more propylene glycol since the last permit, with usage during the 2000  2001 deicing season consisting of 87% propylene glycol and 13% ethylene glycol. The amount of glycol used varies depending on winter weather conditions. The problem is seasonal during the periods of deicing or anti icing in the winter. At other times, the runoff from the airport is typical of urban storm water runoff.

Airport runoff enters the storm sewer system and discharges from 31 outfalls into Starkweather Creek, which drains into the Yahara Monona watershed. Pollutants of concern in the storm water include deicing and anti icing chemicals, petroleum products, suspended solids, and traces of toxic materials. Metals and nutrients have not been found as a problem in monitoring data. Dane County previously conducted a site investigation that provided information on the airport's separate storm sewer system and characterized storm water runoff quality. A storm water retention pond was constructed in 1991 to prevent the majority of glycol from entering Starkweather Creek. The glycol contaminated runoff is captured during the deicing season in the glycol retention pond, which provides storage and treatment. The pond effluent is either discharged into a sanitary sewer, or if the pond water quality meets effluent limitations a discharge to Starkweather Creek is allowable.

This permit will regulate the discharge from the glycol retention pond and the separate storm sewer system serving the airport. Pollution prevention efforts are emphasized. Major components of the permit include the following: a storm water pollution prevention plan to reduce pollutant sources, capture of runoff containing glycol and other chemicals used to deice or anti ice, monitoring of storm water discharges, discharge requirements for reductions in pollutant loading through implementation of best management practices, and an annual report to summarize and assess compliance with permit requirements.

SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS:

This section of the fact sheet describes the proposed permit requirements, changes from the previous permit, and the rationale for the specific conditions. The first permit was issued June 28, 1996, and expired March 31, 2001. The permit regulates the discharge in accordance with ch. 283, Wis. Stats., and ch. NR 102, 105, 106, and ch. NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code. The permit incorporates aspects of DNR's storm water general permit for industrial facilities, the EPA's storm water multi sector permit for air transportation facilities in the standard industrial classification code 45, and the oil and water separator general permit. An individual permit instead of a general permit will regulate the storm water in accordance with s. 216.25( 3), Wis. Adm. Code, because deicing and anti icing can be a significant source of pollutants.

1. Tenant Coverage The airport permit cover 15 co permittees under one permit. This allows DNR to efficiently regulate Dane County, the owner, and 14 airport tenants, who are the operators, all together instead of through Page 2 many separate permits. A tenant conducting industrial activity that may contaminate storm water runoff must be permitted if they meet two criteria: ( 1) is in the air transportation business, and ( 2) is involved in maintenance, fueling, cleaning, or deicing. All the tenants needing permitting are covered under this permit. Revisions to the airport co permittee list, which identifies tenants covered under this permit, may be made by the Department to reflect changes in tenant status during the term of the permit. Some changes in tenants have occurred since the first permit.

2. Applicability This permit applies to Dane County Regional Airport within the jurisdiction of Dane County, and includes airport tenants as co permittee. Storm water runoff, and flows contributed by process and nonprocess wastewater into the airport's separate storm sewer system, are regulated point source discharges under this permit. Except as permitted or authorized by the permit, discharges from the airport's separate storm sewer system may not contain pollutants which would cause a violation of water quality standards. The airport's storm water pollution prevention plan must limit the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Implementation of the best management practices described in the storm water pollution prevention plan is the means for addressing compliance with water quality standards.

There are individual and joint responsibilities between Dane County and the airport tenants who become co permittees. The airport's storm sewer system also receives inflows from off site, and these inflows may contribute pollutants to the storm sewer system. And discharges from non permitted airport tenants may also contribute pollutants. The airport is not being held responsible for the input of pollutants from off site or from tenants who are not co permittees. These other pollutant sources will be addressed by the Department as the storm water program progresses.

3. Authorized Discharges The permit regulates certain discharges of storm water runoff from the airport's 31 outfalls into Starkweather Creek. It also regulates wastewater discharges from the glycol retention pond, and oil and water separators. Non storm water discharges contributing pollutants are prohibited. To screen for illicit connections to the storm sewer system, an evaluation of non storm water discharges was completed and will be repeated every 5 years.

Excluded from coverage under this permit, because they aren't within the Department's authority to regulate, are areas of the airport not associated with industrial activities. Not covered are office buildings, parking lots, and undeveloped areas. Also excluded are areas off site or upstream of the airport, and tenants who do not meet the permitting criteria. Innocuous non storm water discharges may also enter the storm sewer system without regulation.

4. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan The storm water pollution prevention plan is the major component of the permit. The plan was developed under the previous permit and was submitted in December 1996. Best management practices have been implemented to limit to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants from the separate storm sewer system. Cost effective pollution prevention practices are emphasized, including the glycol retention pond. Source areas of pollution were evaluated for the reduction of pollutants entering storm water. Pollution prevention is an ongoing activity.

5. In Plant Requirements ( Oil and Water Separators)

There are 13 oil and water separators at the airport, serving as treatment control measures at fueling or fuel storage areas, maintenance areas, and fire training center. Effluent from 12 of the oil and water separators are discharged into the City of Madison sanitary sewer, so they are not regulated under this permit. There is one oil and water separator, installed at the Wisconsin Air National Guard in 1999, which has a discharge to an 18 inch storm sewer at Outfall 034. This discharge is regulated by the permit, Page 3 and must comply with the permit requirements to be an authorized non storm water discharge. Special conditions for the operation, effluent limitations, and monitoring requirement reflect those from the oil and water separator general permit.

6. Surface Water Requirements This section of the permit contains all the monitoring to evaluate the storm sewer discharges, and the effluent limitations for when a discharge from the glycol retention pond may occur. Monitoring is required at following six sampling locations:

Sampling Point Description 001 Discharge from Glycol Retention Pond into Starkweather Creek. 601 Instream monitoring required for a Glycol Retention Pond discharge. 003 and 022 Two representative storm sewer discharges from airport into Starkweather Creek. 602 and 603 Starkweather Creek water quality monitoring upstream and downstream.

Glycol Retention Pond Plans for the 2 million gallon glycol retention pond were approved September 10, 1991, and the addition of aerators to control odor and reduce BOD5, were approved July 12, 1994. The pond operates on a fill and draw basis. Storm sewer system modifications were made to isolate runoff from the west apron adjacent to the terminal, where 94% of the glycol is applied to aircraft. Approximately 50% of the glycol drains off the aircraft onto the apron area. The runoff from the west apron area, consisting of 13.9 acres served by non perforated storm sewers, is diverted into the glycol retention pond. Storm water runoff is retained in the pond during the deicing season. During the rest of the year, storm water uncontaminated by glycol, passes through the pond and into Starkweather Creek. The majority of runoff from other areas of the airport, which doesn't appear to be a significant source of pollutants, discharges directly into Starkweather Creek.

Specific effluent limitations apply to the discharge from the glycol retention pond at Outfall 001. If limits aren't met the wastewater is discharged to the sanitary sewer, and the airport is subject to the requirements of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District. Discharges into the sanitary sewer are also made if the capacity of the glycol retention pond is approached and it must be drawn down during the deicing season to maintain storage capacity for runoff events. The water quality based weekly mass BOD5 limitations in this permit are based on an allowable discharge of 26 pounds of BOD5 per day per cfs of stream flow, modified for temperature. To address glycol discharges, BOD5 is used to indirectly regulate it because of the oxygen demands of glycol. Other parameters monitored in the current permit include COD, TSS, pH, oil & grease, TKN, ammonia, phosphorus, glycol, lead, zinc, and hardness. Based on the monitoring data for oil & grease, total glycol, lead, zinc, and hardness, these parameters will no longer be monitored because concentrations are below levels of concern. Ammonia and phosphorus must continue to be monitored since they are added as nutrients to the glycol retention pond for effective treatment.

To protect water quality, before a discharge from the glycol retention pond is allowed Starkweather Creek must have a minimum flow of 1 cfs and dissolved oxygen of 7 mg/ L. Instream monitoring is done at a gauging station, identified as Sampling Point 601, located approximately 1400 feet downstream from Outfall 001. In addition, the wastewater must be monitored prior to and during the discharge to assure compliance with effluent limitations. The BOD5 may not be greater than 50 mg/ L, which serves as a treatment performance standard. The BOD5 mass limitation is dependent on the effluent concentration, effluent flow, stream flow, and temperature. By knowing the BOD5 concentration, stream flow, and time of year ( temperature factor), the effluent flow rate can be adjusted so the daily mass limitation is met. A table is provided in the permit showing the BOD5 concentration and mass limits per 1 cfs of flow. Similar limitations apply to ammonia. Because the runoff is nutrient deficient, nitrogen and phosphorus have been added to the glycol retention pond for the biological treatment of the glycol to maintain a proper nutrient ratio ( 350  900 pounds of nitrogen and 70  350 pounds of phosphorus typically added). Page 4 The glycol retention pond discharge was evaluated in the first permit as a new discharge for the purpose of the antidegradation requirements in ch. NR 207, Wis. Adm. Code. Effluent mass limitations reflect this by using only a third of the available assimilative capacity of Starkweather Creek to prevent a significant lowering of water quality. Only if it is found that the use of cost effective measures don't prevent the significant lowering of water quality would the effluent limitations be the full value for BOD5 and ammonia.

The first permit includes a 20 mg/ L TSS limit for the glycol detention pond discharge. The origin of why this limit was included is unknown and appears to be a mistake. The proposed TSS limit for the reissued permit is a daily maximum of 50 mg/ L, so it's the same as the BOD5 limit. Permit limits for BOD5 and TSS are normally the same. A BOD5 concentration limit was included in the effluents limits memo for the first permit as a best professional judgment for the treatment capability of the glycol retention pond. The new effluent limits memo references the previous 20 mg/ L limit, but since that limit was incorrect it will not be used. Similarly, because the 50 mg/ L limit is replacing a limit that was in error, an antidegradation review according to ch. NR 207, Wis. Adm. Code, in not applicable.

Storm Sewer and Starkweather Creek Monitoring:

A monitoring program collects storm water runoff quality data to evaluate storm water best management practices. Dane County Regional Airport's proposed monitoring program meets the airport's needs in evaluating the storm water pollution prevention plan. The minimum monitoring requirements are contained in this section of the permit, but the airport may need to conduct other monitoring as appropriate to evaluate specific storm water best management practices. The permit includes the following monitoring program elements:

  Visual quarterly inspections of discharges   Collection of storm water samples for chemical analysis   Collection of receiving water samples to assess impairment or improvement Procedures for visual inspections and chemical analysis are described in the permit. Monitoring is done at two representative storm sewer outfalls from the airport ( Sampling Points 003 and 022). Added to the permit are new upstream and downstream locations in Starkweather Creek to assess the impact of the airport on receiving water quality ( Sampling Points 602 and 603). The chemical sampling of the storm sewers requires an analysis of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, BOD5, COD, TSS, oil & grease, dissolved oxygen, and pH. The chemical sampling of Starkweather Creek requires an analysis of BOD5, COD, TSS, dissolved oxygen, and pH. The previous permit required two rounds of chemical sampling of the representative storm sewers for 14 parameters. This list of parameters was reduced by eliminating those substances below concentrations of concern. Sampling is now required annually during a deicing or anti icing event to continuation the evaluation of runoff quality.

General narrative discharge limitations are used to protect water quality. For determining compliance with implementation of the pollution prevention plan efforts, especially deicing and anti icing management controls, the reduction in glycol discharged will be evaluated. Best management practices for controlling storm water discharges, described in the airport's storm water pollution prevention plan, are the means for addressing water quality standards. Specific numeric effluent limitations aren't included in the permit for the storm water outfalls. Chapters NR 102 through NR 105, Wis. Adm. Codes, which contain the water quality standards, currently are not applicable to storm water because these administrative codes don't contain procedures to address the intermittent nature of storm water discharges.

7. Groundwater Requirements To detect any leakage from the glycol retention pond, four groundwater monitoring wells were installed around it as required in the plan approval for the glycol retention pond. The monitoring wells are sampled twice annually for groundwater elevation, depth to groundwater, BOD5, COD, pH, total dissolved solids, and conductivity. Groundwater flows to the southwest toward Starkweather Creek. Page 5 Monitoring well No. 801 is the upgradient background well. Preventative action limits were calculated from background well data collected to date. The standard conditions for groundwater monitoring are included.

8. Schedules of Compliance ( Annual Report)

This section lists required permit activities, with references to the permit sections that contains the requirement, and due date. Requirements are included for a comprehensive annual site inspection to verify conditions at the airport, and annual report summarizing permit activities. The annual report, due each September, serves to demonstrate permit compliance and provides the Department with information to keep informed of airport activities. The monitoring data summary in the report serves in place of monthly discharge monitoring report forms. The annual report includes the following:

  Status of storm water pollution prevention plan implementation   An updated storm sewer system map reflecting any note worthy changes   A summary assessing the effectiveness of best management practices   Amendments to the storm water pollution prevention plan   A summary of the monitoring data   A summary of the estimated reduction in glycol discharged   Identification of any receiving water quality changes   Expenditures for the past year and next year's budget 9. Standard Requirements The relevant standard requirements typical to all WPDES permits are included. These consist of requirements for reporting, monitoring, operating, and surface water discharges. Any standard requirements not applicable to the permit were deleted.

10. Summary of Reports Due The airport must submit to the Bureau of Watershed Management and the South Central Region Office reports required in the permit. These consist of the annual report, and any reports to comply with permit schedules or non compliance.

COMPLIANCE REVIEW:

Dane County submitted the permit reissuance application for Dane County Regional Airport September 20, 2000. Five annual reports summarizing monitoring data and compliance with storm water management requirements were submitted as scheduled to document compliance with the permit. All other compliance schedule dates were complied with.

The following table summarizes glycol usage per deicing season, and estimated amount of glycol captured in the glycol retention pond. Data shows a trend in reduced glycol usage and increased glycol captured. The glycol retention pond appears to be effective in preventing the runoff of glycol. And when considering that 50% of the glycol is considered fugitive, the airport is capturing about 80% of the collectable glycol.

Gallons of Gallons of Glycol Pounds of BOD5 % Glycol Deicing Season Glycol Used Captured in Pond Captured in Pond Captured 1996  1997 73,400 21,572 98,153 29.4 1997  1998 40,724 16,308 89,041 40.0 1998  1999 32,285 12,178 66,491 37.7 1999  2000 39,188 17,117 93,457 43.7 2000  2001 60,165 25,679 139,206 42.7 Average 49,152 18,571 97,270 38.7 Page 6 Discharges of treated runoff from the glycol retention pond to Starkweather Creek have occurred every spring for about a one week period. Effluent quality and mass loadings have been in substantial compliance with discharge limitations. Total suspended solids have sometimes exceeded the limit, with a high of 170 mg/ L in May 1998. The higher concentrations were attributed to the growth of algae in the pond. The corrected TSS limit of 50 mg/ L should be met consistently, with only an occasional higher concentration due to algae. The following table summarizes the average effluent quality during the term of the first permit.

Parameter 1996  1997 1997  1998 1998  1999 1999  2000 2000  2001 Volume ( MG) 5.76 1.27 2.39 5.48 2.04 BOD5 ( mg/ L) 12 6 12 < 40 18 COD ( mg/ L) 44 45 72 128 80 TSS ( mg/ L) 34 13 10 17 30 Oil & Grease ( mg/ L) < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.8 pH ( su) 8.8 8.0 7.8 7.4 7.3 TKN ( mg/ L) 2.3 3.0 2.7 4.1 3.8 Ammonia ( mg/ L) 0.14 1.07 0.28 0.78 1.39 Phosphorus ( mg/ L) 0.17 0.25 0.14 0.34 0.39 Total Glycol ( mg/ L) < 10 < 1 < 10 < 10 < 10 Lead ( µ g/ L) 1.2 < 35 < 1.4 < 35 < 35 Zinc ( µ g/ L) 17 42 < 29 52 < 15 Hardness ( mg/ L) 110 200 165 155 190 Quarterly monitoring during two sampling rounds collected monitoring data to characterize runoff quality from two representative storm sewers located outside the glycol management area. The results are summarized in the following table, which shows the range in concentration. Data shows storm water runoff from the airport separate storm sewer system is generally of good quality, but on occasion is a source of pollutants ( detection of glycol and elevated BOD5) during the deicing season, which runs from October through April. Monitoring will be discontinued for TKN, ammonia, phosphorus, copper, lead, zinc, and hardness because concentrations were below levels of concern.

Parameter 1997  1998 1999  2000 Dissolved Oxygen ( mg/ L) 7.4  7.7 8.3  10 BOD5 ( mg/ L) < 3  230 < 4.5  160 COD ( mg/ L) 12  240 < 7.3  310 TSS ( mg/ L) 1  17 1  220 Oil & Grease ( mg/ L) < 1  93 < 1  1.5 pH ( su) 7.4  8.1 7.0  8.4 TKN ( mg/ L) 0.08  0.85 < 0.21  1.6 Ammonia ( mg/ L) < 0.1 < 0.1  1.3 Phosphorus ( mg/ L) 0.027  0.14 < 0.10 Total Glycol ( mg/ L) < 1  < 10 < 10  37 Copper ( µ g/ L) < 2.3  2.6 < 2.3  5.9 Lead ( µ g/ L) < 35 < 35  110 Zinc ( µ g/ L) 17  100 28  100 Hardness ( mg/ L) 270  480 160  450 The groundwater monitoring wells around the glycol retention pond generally do not have concentrations of substances at a level of concern. Unexpected and unexplained increased concentrations of BOD5 and COD occurred in 1997 and 1998 at some of the wells, but data has since returned to normal. The increase was not due to the glycol because it was not present in the samples. This indicates the pond liner isn't leaking, and the perforated storm sewers aren't leaking pollutants that could impact groundwater quality. The following table summarizes the groundwater monitoring data collected during the term of the first permit and submitted with the annual reports ( excludes abnormal data): Page 7 Parameter Well 801 Well 802 Well 803 Well 804 BOD5 ( mg/ L) < 13.5 < 7.6 < 5.4 < 22.7 COD ( mg/ L) 29 9.6 11.5 41 pH ( su) 6.9 7.4 7.4 7.1 TDS ( mg/ L) 910 500 760 830 Conductivity ( µ mhos/ cm) 1180 650 970 1130 Depth ( feet) 11.63 9.67 8.27 7.92 The previous permit included requirements for potential discharges from groundwater remediation projects at the airport associated with the fuel systems and other locations with petroleum contaminated soil or groundwater. Because no remediation projects exist or are expected, this section of the permit is being deleted.

RECOMMENDATION:

I am recommending the permit be reissued in accordance with the specific conditions outlined in this memo. The permit's primary purpose is to reduce to the maximum extent practicable, the runoff of glycol from aircraft deicing and anti icing, to prevent the contamination of storm water from the airport that discharges to waters of the state. Use of best management practices, especially the collection and treatment of contaminated runoff in glycol retention pond, is the permit's means to comply with water quality standards.

Prepared by:

Paul W. Luebke, P. H. Wastewater Permits and Pretreatment Section Bureau of Watershed Management attachment: Water Quality Based Effluent Limits Memo September 20, 2001


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21087-21089]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8973]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64275; File No. SR-ISE-2011-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Enhancements to the Exchange's Electronic Trading
Platform

April 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 7, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to facilitate
enhancements to its electronic options trading system being implemented
as part of the Optimise platform. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.ise.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange has developed an enhanced technology trading platform
(the ``Optimise platform''). To assure a smooth transition, the
Exchange will migrate option classes from its current trading system to
the Optimise platform over time (the ``Transition Period'').\5\ The
Optimise platform will offer members the same trading functionality as
the current trading system with some minor enhancements, several of
which were previously added to the ISE's rules.\6\ Additionally, the
Exchange previously adopted rule changes to identify certain
functionality that it anticipated would be phased-in during the
Transition Period.\7\ However, since the adoption of these rule
changes, the initial plan for the launch of the Optimise platform has
changed, and the Optimise platform will now have most of the current
functionality available during the Transition Period. The purpose of
this rule filing is to remove language from the Exchange's rules
indicating that certain functionality is not available on the Optimise
platform and to identify additional minor enhancements that will be
included on the Optimise platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Options classes will be transferred from the current trading
platform to the Optimise trading platform. The same options cannot
trade on both systems at the same time. The Exchange has been
working with its members to assure a smooth transition to the
Optimise trading platform and will continue to do so up to the
launch of the new technology and during the Transition Period.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63117 (October 15,
2010), 75 FR 65042 (October 21, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-101).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete Supplementary
Material .10 to Rule 716 (Block Trades), Supplementary Material .03 to
Rule 722 (Complex Orders), and Supplementary Material .09 to Rule 723
(Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions), which indicate
that the Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism, Price Improvement Mechanism and complex order functionality
will not be available for options traded on the Optimise platform.\8\
The Optimise platform will now include all of this functionality during
the Transition Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The only functionality that will be phased-in is related to
cabinet trades pursuant to ISE Rule 718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the Optimise platform, the Exchange proposes to add the
flexibility for the Exchange to determine, on a class basis, whether
orders on the complex order book at the same price are executed in time
priority, as they are currently, or among participants pursuant to ISE
Rule 713(e) and Supplementary Material .01(a) to ISE Rule 713(e).\9\
Under ISE Rule 713(e), priority customer orders are given priority over
Professional Orders and market maker quotes at the same price, which
will also be the case on the complex order book. However, because there
is no obligation for primary market makers to enter quotes on the
complex order book, primary market makers will not receive the enhanced
participation rights to which they are entitled in the regular
market.\10\ The Exchange notes that this proposed rule change does not
affect the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 722 which limits the
execution of complex orders when there are Priority Customer orders on
the Exchange for the individual series of a complex order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Exchanges have previously been given the ability to choose
an allocation methodology on a class or series basis. See, e.g.,
CBOE Rule 6.53C. The Exchange will notify Exchange members regarding
allocation methodology for executions on the complex order book via
circular.
    \10\ Supplementary Material to Rule 713, paragraphs .01(b) and
(c) (enhanced participation rights for Primary Market Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For options traded on the Optimise platform, the Exchange also
proposes to modify the Price Improvement Mechanism so that Counter-Side
Orders and Improvement Orders only execute against the Agency Order
that is being exposed. Currently, when members respond to an order
entered into the Price Improvement Mechanism, they may be executed
against certain other, unrelated orders.\11\ While the Exchange
initially implemented this particular feature of the Price Improvement
Mechanism to differentiate its service from those offered by other
exchanges and to potentially attract additional unrelated order flow to
the Exchange, this feature may discourage market participants from
responding to Agency Orders. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
removing this feature could increase competition for orders entered
into the Price Improvement Mechanism and thereby result in additional
price improvement for agency orders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pursuant to ISE Rule 723(d)(6), when a market order or
marketable limit order on the same side of the market as the Agency
Order ends the exposure period, it will execute against any
unexecuted interest in the Price Improvement Mechanism after the
Agency Order is executed in full.
    \12\ The Price Improvement Period on the Boston Options Exchange
(``BOX'') currently contains this feature. See Chapter 5, Sec. 18(i)
of the BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that members initially will not be able
to enter reserve orders, nor complex orders with an all-or-none or
minimum quantity modifier in options classes that are traded on the
Optimise platform. The Exchange will make these order types available
on the Optimise platform as promptly as possible within the first month
of the Transition Period, and assure that members are informed of the
status of these order types.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b),\13\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5)\14\
in particular, that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the Exchange believes the Optimise platform will improve
the efficiency and quality of options executions on the Exchange. The
Exchange further believes that liquidity on the complex order book may
be enhanced by executing all interest at the same price pro-rata based
on size (with Priority Customer priority) as it does in its regular
market. Having the ability to determine on a class basis whether orders
on the complex order book at the same price will be executed in time
priority or pro-rata based on size (with Priority Customer priority)
will give the Exchange greater flexibility to respond to market needs
and enhance its ability to compete more effectively. Finally, the
Exchange believes that limiting the availability of Counter-Side Orders
and Improvement Orders to execute only against the agency order being
exposed in the Price Improvement Mechanism will encourage greater price
competition with larger size, thereby increasing the opportunity for
such agency order to receive additional price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The

Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members
or other interested parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest.
    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30 day period
for this filing to become operative so that it may become effective and
operative upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. The Exchange
believes that waiver of the operative delay period is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest in that it will
allow the Exchange to effect an orderly launch of the Optimise platform
on April 11, 2011. Specifically, the Exchange previously adopted rule
changes to identify certain existing functionality that it anticipated
would be phase-in during the Transition Period.\17\ However, virtually
all of that functionality has been fully tested and is available for
the launch. The Exchange believes that it will be less disruptive to
members for this existing functionality to be available on the Optimise
platform at the launch, as the trading environment will be more similar
to the Exchange's existing market. In this respect, the Exchange notes
that it has been conducting extensive testing with members and that it
will initially trade only ten securities that have very limited trading
volume on the Optimise platform. The Exchange will gradually transition
additional securities to the Optimise platform to assure an orderly
implementation of the new system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63117 (October 15,
2010), 75 FR 65042 (October 21, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-101).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that in October of 2010, the Exchange filed a
proposed rule change relating to the functionalities that are the
subject of the current proposal.\18\ At that time, the Exchange
identified certain functionalities, including the functionalities that
are the subject of the current proposal, which will not be immediately
available on the Optimise platform but would be phased in during the
Transition Period. However, the Exchange now represents that the
functionalities discussed in this filing are fully tested and available
for launch on April 11. Allowing the functionalities to be available on
the Optimise platform at the launch rather than after a delay should
contribute to a more orderly launch and should facilitate
implementation of Optimise under the Transition Period contemplated by
the Exchange's rules. Further, as stated above, the Exchange has
already noted its intent to later adopt these functionalities in a
previous proposal. Therefore, Commission believes that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is appropriate and consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest \19\ and designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id.
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2011-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-24. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange.\20\ All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-24 and should be
submitted on or before May 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8973 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72372-72374]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1065; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00280-T;
Amendment 39-22231; AD 2022-23-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report that the flightcrew and passenger oxygen system's
refill and capillary lines may have been contaminated by sealant and
cotton fibers. This AD requires an inspection to determine the serial
numbers of the oxygen cylinders installed and replacement of each
affected oxygen cylinder and regulator assembly (OCRA). The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 30, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 30,
2022.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1065; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; internet
bombardier.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1065.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Kim, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier,
Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 31, 2022 (87 FR 53421). The NPRM was prompted by AD
CF-2022-07, dated March 1, 2022, issued by Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred
to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states the flightcrew and
passenger oxygen system's refill and capillary lines may have been
contaminated by sealant and cotton fibers. Any contamination is
expected to collect in the OCRA filters, which may cause a blockage of
the oxygen system components and result in a reduction of oxygen flow,
reduce the total amount of available oxygen, or create a fire hazard.
See the MCAI for additional background information.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require accomplishing the actions
specified in the Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-7502, Basic Issue,
dated January 26, 2022. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1065.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined
that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product.
Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any
operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-7502, Basic
Issue, dated January 26, 2022. This service information describes
procedures for an inspection to determine the serial numbers of the
oxygen cylinders installed and replacement of each affected OCRA with a
new or reworked OCRA.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 16 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425...........................          $3,069           $3,494          $55,904
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-23-04 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-22231; Docket No. FAA-
2022-1065; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00280-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 30,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12
airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers
70006, 70008, 70009 through 70016 inclusive, 70019, 70020, 70025,
70026, 70028, 70032 through 70035 inclusive, 70038 through 70043
inclusive, 70046, 70048, 70050, 70051, 70054, 70063, and 70073.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the flightcrew and
passenger oxygen system's refill and capillary lines may have been
contaminated by sealant and cotton fibers. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the contamination, which may cause a blockage of the
oxygen system components and result in a reduction of oxygen flow,
reduce the total amount of available oxygen, or create a fire
hazard.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Replacement

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an
inspection to determine the serial numbers of the oxygen cylinders
installed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-7502, Basic Issue, dated January
26, 2022 (SB 700-35-7502). If any affected oxygen cylinder and
regulator assembly (OCRA) is installed, before further flight
replace the affected part with a new or reworked OCRA, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 700-35-7502.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
affected oxygen cylinder having a serial number specified in
paragraph 1.A. of SB 700-35-7502, on any airplane.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although SB 700-35-7502 specifies to report certain information
to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to TCCA AD CF-2022-07, dated March 1, 2022, for
related information. This TCCA AD may be found in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1065.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-7502, Basic Issue, dated
January 26, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; internet
bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 27, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-25513 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50646-50647]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0433; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-5]

Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Bryant AAF,
Anchorage, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D airspace at Bryant
Army Airfield (AAF), Anchorage AK. Controlled airspace is necessary due
to an increase in the complexity, volume and variety of aircraft in the
immediate vicinity of Bryant AAF. The FAA is proposing this action to
enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0433; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-5, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2012-0433 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-5) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2012-0433 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-5''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center,

Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class D airspace extending
upward from the surface at Bryant AAF, Anchorage AK. Controlled
airspace is necessary to accommodate the increased volume and variety
of aircraft arriving and departing the immediate vicinity of Bryant
AAF. This action would enhance the safety and management of the
complexity of aircraft operations at the airport.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, of
FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify controlled airspace at Bryant AAF, Anchorage AK.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

AAL AK D Bryant Army Airfield, Anchorage AK [NEW]

Bryant AAF, AK
    (Lat. 61[deg]15'57'' N., long. 149[deg]39'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
1,600 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat.
61[deg]14'24'' N., long. 149[deg]41'23'' W.; to lat. 61[deg]14'08''
N., long. 149[deg]40'40'' W.; to lat. 61[deg]14'56'' N., long.
149[deg]38'48'' W.; to lat., 61[deg]15'54'' N. long. 149[deg]38'17''
W.; thence to the point of beginning. That airspace extending upward
from the surface to and including 2,900 feet MSL within an area
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 61[deg]17'13'' N. long.
149[deg]37'35'' W.; to lat. 61[deg]17'13'' N. long. 149[deg]43'08''
W.; to lat. 61[deg]13'49'' N., long. 149[deg]43'08'' W.; to lat.
61[deg]14'24'' N., long. 149[deg]41'23'' W.; to lat. 61[deg]15'54''
N., long. 149[deg]38'20'' W.; thence to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 14, 2012.
John Warner
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-20539 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P