[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 210 (Friday, October 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66898-66899]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27691]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0103; FRL-9936-39-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Rebate
Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
(DERA) Rebate Program'' (EPA ICR No. 2461.02, OMB Control No. 2060-
0686) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through October 31, 2015. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register on August 25, 2015 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 30,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0103, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Cooley, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, (Mail Code: 6406A),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
343-2803; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program (DERA) is
authorized by Title VII, Subtitle G (Sections 791 to 797) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), as amended by the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-364), codified at 42 U.S.C. 16131 et
seq. DERA provides the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the
authority to award grants, rebates or low-cost revolving loans on a
competitive basis to eligible entities to fund the costs of projects
that significantly reduce diesel emissions from mobile sources through
implementation of a certified engine configuration, verified
technology, or emerging technology. Eligible mobile sources include
buses (including school buses), medium heavy-duty or heavy heavy-duty
diesel trucks, marine engines, locomotives, or nonroad engines or
diesel vehicles or equipment used in construction, handling of cargo
(including at ports or airports), agriculture, mining, or energy
production. In addition, eligible entities may also use funds awarded
for programs or projects to reduce long-duration idling using verified
technology involving a vehicle or equipment described above. The
objective of the assistance under this program is to achieve
significant reductions in diesel emissions in terms of tons of
pollution produced and reductions in diesel emissions exposure,
particularly from fleets operating in areas designated by the
Administrator as poor air quality areas.
    EPA uses approved procedures and forms to collect necessary
information to operate its grant and rebate programs as authorized by
Congress under the DERA program. EPA collects information from
applicants to the DERA rebate program. Information collected is used to
ensure eligibility of applicants and engines to receive funds under
DERA, and to calculate estimated and actual emissions benefits that
result from activities funded with rebates as required in DERA's
authorizing legislation.
    Form Numbers: 2060-0686.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities interested in applying for
a rebate under EPA's Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Rebate
Program and include but are not limited to the following NAICS (North
American Industry Classification System) codes: 23 Construction; 482
Rail Transportation; 483 Water Transportation; 484 Truck
Transportation; 485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation; 48831
Port and Harbor Operations; 61111 Elementary and Secondary Schools;
61131 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools; 9211 Executive,
Legislative, and Other Government Support; and 9221 Justice, Public
Order, and Safety Activities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 500-1,000 (total).
    Frequency of response: Voluntary as needed.
    Total estimated burden: 2,827 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $100,592.58 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 1,933 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to a higher level of interest in
the rebate program than originally anticipated. The revised burden of
2,827 hours reflects an updated estimate of 771 applicants
(respondents) and is based on the number of applications submitted
under previous rebate funding opportunities. In the ICR currently
approved by OMB, EPA estimated an annual burden of 894 hours for 120
applicants. EPA received over 1,000 applications for the 2012 pilot
program and over 500 applications for the 2014 funding opportunity.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-27691 Filed 10-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9341-9342]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP11-68-000; PF10-19-000]

Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on January 27, 2011, Equitrans, L.P.
(``Equitrans''), having its principal place of business at 625 Liberty
Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, filed an
application in Docket No. CP11-68-000 pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for
a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and
operate its Sunrise Project. Equitrans' Sunrise Project is designed to
provide additional firm capacity of up to 313,560 Dekatherms per day on
its system at an incremental rate and will address infrastructure
constraints associated with the rapid development of natural gas from
the Marcellus Shale formation in the central Appalachian Basin.
Specifically, Equitrans proposes to: (1) Construct and operate
approximately 41.5 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline, 0.21-mile of 20-
inch pipeline and 2.7 miles of 16-inch pipeline parallel to existing
Equitrans transmission and gathering pipelines; (2) replace a 2.6-mile
section of inactive 16-inch pipeline with new 20-inch pipeline; (3)
retest and uprate 4.8 miles of 20-inch pipeline with appropriate
overpressure protection facilities; (4) install one new compressor
station consisting of three reciprocating units providing approximately
14,205 horsepower (hp); and (5) perform additional activities for
aboveground sites for interconnections,

mainline block valves, launchers and receivers, control systems, and
other facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application, which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Paul
W. Diehl, Senior Counsel-Midstream, EQT Corporation, 625 Liberty
Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; by
faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by e-mailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    On May 28, 2010, the Commission staff granted Equitrans' request to
use the pre-filing process and assigned Docket No. PF10-19-000 to staff
activities involving the Sunrise Project. Now, as of the filing of this
application on January 27, 2011, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this
project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP11-68-000, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission's staff will
either complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission's staff issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to reach a final decision on a request
for federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: March 3, 2011.

    Dated: February 10, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3620 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 134 (Monday, July 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41906-41910]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0180; Project Identifier 2017-CE-043-AD; Amendment
39-21146; AD 2020-13-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Daher Aircraft Design, LLC (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Quest Aircraft Design, LLC), Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Daher Aircraft Design, LLC (type certificate previously held by Quest
Aircraft Design, LLC), Model KODIAK 100 airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports of cracks found in certain nose landing gear (NLG) forks.
This AD requires a one-time inspection to determine if an affected NLG
fork is installed, repetitive inspections of the affected NLG fork for
cracks, repetitive inspections of the shimmy damper bracket for
looseness, and of the shimmy damper system for damaged components if an
affected NLG fork is installed, and rework/replacement of parts as
necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 17, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 17,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Kodiak Aircraft Company, Inc., 1200 Turbine Drive, Sandpoint,
Idaho 83864; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://Kodiak.aero/support. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0180.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0180; 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 regulatory evaluation, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wade Sullivan, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Quest Aircraft
Design, LLC (type certificate now held by Daher Aircraft Design, LLC),
Model KODIAK 100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on March 8, 2018 (83 FR 9820). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
cracks on the NLG fork on Model KODIAK 100 airplanes. The NPRM proposed
to require a one-time inspection to determine if an affected NLG fork
is installed, repetitive inspections of the affected NLG fork for
cracks, repetitive inspections of the shimmy damper bracket for
looseness if an affected NLG fork is installed, and rework/replacement
of parts as necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent separation
of the NLG fork and consequent reduced control on landing. If the NLG
fork separates on an unimproved surface, the risk of the NLG digging in
and the airplane overturning on the ground increases.
    Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the type certificate holder for the
Model KODIAK 100 airplane changed from Quest Aircraft Design, LLC
(Quest), to Daher Aircraft Design, LLC. This final rule reflects that
change and updates the contact information to obtain service
documentation.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Proposed AD To Lessen Economic Impact

    Quest requested numerous changes to paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of
the proposed AD. In support, Quest stated that these changes would
address all sources of shimmy and lessen the economic impact to
operators in international locations where nondestructive testing (NDT)
inspection methods are less accessible.
    First, Quest requested that the FAA change paragraphs (h)(1) and
(i)(1) of the proposed AD to require the initial inspections only if
there is shimmy. Quest stated that its analysis and review of the NLG
fork determined that extended shimmy with the existing design (type A
NLG fork) could result in fatigue cracks at the locations reported.
    The FAA disagrees with this request because there is no regulatory
requirement for all pilots to report a nosewheel shimmy event. If the
initial inspections were conditional on reported shimmy events, the
unsafe condition would go unaddressed each time a pilot forgot or
neglected to report an event.
    Quest also requested that the FAA revise the service information
that would be required throughout the proposed AD to allow later
revisions.
    The FAA disagrees with this request. Requiring the use of a service
document that does not yet exist at the time an AD is published
violates 1 CFR 51.1(f), regarding approval by the Director of the
Federal Register of a publication incorporated by reference. In order
for operators to use later revisions of a referenced document (issued
after the publication of the AD), either the AD must be revised to
reference the specific later revisions, or operators must request
approval to use a later revision as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) using the procedures in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    Quest requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(2) of the
proposed AD to remove the identification of the replacement part so
that replacement of a cracked NLG fork is not limited to NLG fork P/N
100-410-7013 (type B).
    The FAA disagrees. The type B NLG fork, P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>, is the
only replacement option that has been shown to address the unsafe
condition. The FAA disagrees with relying solely on the repetitive
inspections without requiring replacement with the type B NLG fork if a
crack is found. If a different option provides an acceptable level of
safety, an operator may request an AMOC using the procedures in
paragraph (l) of this AD.
    Quest requested that the FAA revise paragraph (i)(1) of the
proposed AD to change the requirement to inspect the shimmy damper
bracket for looseness using revision 21 of the maintenance manual to a
requirement to perform the nosewheel shimmy system troubleshooting
procedure in revision 24 (or later) of the maintenance manual. In
support of this request, Quest stated that shimmy can result from a
wide range of factors, and thus a less focused procedure is more
appropriate.
    The FAA disagrees with this request. The FAA has determined that
the procedures to inspect the shimmy damper bracket and replace damaged
components adequately address the unsafe condition. Performing the
entire nosewheel shimmy system troubleshooting procedure in Revision 24
goes beyond what is required and is not necessary to address the unsafe
condition.
    Quest further requested that the FAA revise paragraph (j) of the
proposed AD to require replacement of the NLG fork using the procedures
in the maintenance manual, instead of the procedures in Quest Field
Service Instruction FSI-147.
    The FAA partially agrees. Replacing an NLG fork with a type B NLG
fork may be accomplished using the Quest maintenance manual or other
standard maintenance practices. The FAA has changed paragraph (j) of
this AD accordingly.

Request To Extend the Repetitive Inspection Intervals

    Quest, New Tribes Mission (Papua New Guinea) Ltd (New Tribes
Mission), and SIL Aviation requested that the FAA extend the repetitive
inspection intervals for the NDT inspection of the NLG fork. In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed a 100-hour TIS interval; the commenters
requested an interval ranging from 200 to 1,000 hours TIS. According to
New Tribes Mission, extending the repetitive interval would align with
other scheduled Kodiak inspection items and still provide a measure of
assurance that no cracks are forming, while reducing labor time and
costs and increasing aircraft availability for operators. Quest stated
that the 30-second duration of a severe shimmy occurrence used in its
original analysis was extraordinarily long, and suggested that half
that duration would still provide a reasonable and conservative number
for analysis and allow increasing the repetitive inspection interval to
200 hours TIS.
    The FAA agrees with the analysis supporting an increase in the
repetitive inspection intervals to 200 hours TIS and has revised
paragraphs (h)(1) and (i)(1) of this AD accordingly. The FAA has
determined there is insufficient data to support increasing the
repetitive inspection intervals beyond 200 hours TIS. The FAA will
consider a further extension of this repetitive interval, via further
rulemaking or approval of an AMOC, if analysis of the nosewheel shimmy
and the effect of the NLG gravel deflectors shows that safety would be
ensured by a longer interval.

Request To Extend Repetitive Interval Based on Shimmy Documentation

    Quest requested that the FAA allow a longer repetitive inspection
interval of 800 hours TIS for operators that implement a shimmy-
occurrence documentation procedure and where no severe shimmy (longer
than 3 seconds per landing) occurs. The commenter suggested that it was
important for international operators to include this option in the AD
instead of through an AMOC because of the various international
regulations and associated complexities in obtaining approvals.
    The FAA disagrees with this request. Although the engineering
analysis provided by Quest suggests that cracks are more likely to
develop in airplanes that experience nosewheel shimmy, there is no
regulatory requirement for all pilots to report or record a shimmy
event. Even if an operator were to adopt and implement a procedure,
there is no reliable way to determine if an airplane has experienced a
previous shimmy event. A new owner of an airplane would have no way of
determining if the airplane had experienced a shimmy event with the
previous owner based on a review of the maintenance records. The FAA
has not changed this AD based on this comment.

Request To Limit Applicability to Airplanes With NLG Gravel Deflector

    New Tribes Mission and SIL Aviation requested that the FAA limit
the applicability of the proposed AD to airplanes with a supplemental
type certificate (STC) for an NLG gravel deflector installed. The
commenters stated that the four instances of cracking on the NLG fork
were limited to airplanes of the same operator, operated in the same
location, with an STC for an NLG gravel deflector installed. New Tribes
Mission noted that the extra weight of the gravel deflector could
exacerbate the effects of the shimmy. Both commenters stated that other
operators in similar locations and conditions, with airplanes that had
accumulated more hours TIS and landings but without the gravel
deflector installed, have not reported any signs of cracking on
airplanes.
    The FAA does not agree with this request. Although Quest's analysis
suggests that nosewheel shimmy contributes to the cracking, there is
insufficient data to make that conclusion specifically for airplanes
with the gravel deflector installed. Should Quest complete a shimmy
analysis of the effect of the NLG gravel deflectors, the FAA will
determine whether to take further rulemaking action.
    The FAA has not changed this AD based on this comment.

Request To Allow Credit for Inspections Already Completed

    Quest requested that the FAA provide relief from the initial
requirement to perform an NDT inspection within 25 hours if an operator
has previously complied with the inspection. Quest stated that such
operators should not be required to perform another ``initial''
inspection.
    Paragraph (f) of this AD requires compliance unless already done.
Thus, the AD already allows operators to take credit for the initial
NDT inspection if it is done before the effective date of the AD.
Operators must then repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed
200 hours TIS. No changes to this AD are necessary based on this
comment.

Comments Regarding the Type of Inspection

    SIL Aviation and New Tribes Mission stated that the NDT inspection
methods required by the AD are not readily available and/or are cost
prohibitive. SIL Aviation noted that the type of inspection would be
very costly to its operation. The FAA infers that these commenters
would like the AD to allow the inspection using a different method.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns about the costs
associated with this AD. However, the FAA has determined that the
required

actions in this AD are necessary to address the unsafe condition. The
FAA considered several possible NDT methods and determined that the
inspection options (fluorescent penetrant, dye penetrant, or eddy
current inspection) for the inspection required by this AD are the most
cost effective and simple to perform in the field while still providing
an adequate level of safety. The dye penetrant kits are available from
several sources. Under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD,
operators may request approval of an AMOC for a different inspection
method if that method provides the same or higher level of crack
detection.

Other Changes to the Proposed AD

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that paragraph (h)(2) require
replacing a cracked NLG fork by following section 5. Instructions in
Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction FSI-147, Revision 00 (not
dated), and paragraph (i)(3) require replacing damaged components by
following pages 32_110 and 32_111, section 3252, Shimmy Damper, in
Chapter 32, Landing Gear, of Quest Aircraft Company Kodiak 100
Maintenance Manual, Revision No. 21, dated February 15, 2017. The FAA
has revised paragraphs (h)(2) and (i)(3) in this AD to remove the
incorporation by reference of the specified service information to
allow the actions to be done using standard maintenance practices.
    The FAA has also clarified the proposed requirements in paragraph
(i). Paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD specified inspecting the
shimmy damper bracket for looseness by following pages 32_110 and
32_111, section 3252, Shimmy Damper, found in Chapter 32, Landing Gear,
of Quest Aircraft Company Kodiak 100 Maintenance Manual, Revision No.
21, dated February 15, 2017. Section 3252 contains a broader inspection
procedure of the shimmy damper system and not only an inspection of the
bracket for looseness. Paragraph (i)(3) of the proposed AD then
specified corrective action for damaged components in the shimmy damper
system as a result of the inspection in paragraph (i)(1). The FAA has
revised paragraph (i)(1) in this AD to clarify that the entire
inspection of the shimmy damper system is required.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the proposal in the NPRM for
addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any burden upon the public than was already
proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction FSI-147,
Revision 00, Release Date January 29, 2018, which provides instructions
for inspection and, if necessary, replacement of the NLG fork. The FAA
reviewed pages 32_110 and 32_111, section 3252, Shimmy Damper, in
Chapter 32, Landing Gear, of Quest Aircraft Company Kodiak 100
Maintenance Manual, Revision No. 21, dated February 15, 2017, which
contains procedures for inspecting the shimmy damper system. The FAA
also reviewed Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction FSI-146,
Revision 00, Release Date April 18, 2017, which provides instructions
for modifying the shimmy damper attach bracket. 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 affects 116 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost              Parts cost              product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determine if type A or type B     1 work-hour x $85   Not applicable............             $85          $9,860
 NLG fork is installed.            per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
additional inspections, replacements, and modifications that would be
required based on the results of the NLG fork type determination. The
FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need
these inspections, replacements, and modifications:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                  Labor cost             Parts cost                  Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the NLG fork for  4 work-hours x     Not applicable...........  $340 per inspection cycle.
 cracks.                         $85 per hour =
                                 $340.
Replacement of the NLG fork...  4 work-hours x     $7,002.36................  $7,342.36.
                                 $85 per hour =
                                 $340.
Inspection of the shimmy        1 work-hour x $85  Not applicable...........  $85 per inspection cycle.
 damper system including the     per hour = $85.
 bracket.
Rework of the shimmy damper     4 work-hours x     $127.33..................  $467.33.
 bracket.                        $85 per hour =
                                 $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for replacing damaged components
specified in this AD.

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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-13-01 Quest Aircraft Design, LLC: Amendment 39-21146; Docket
No. FAA-2018-0180; Project Identifier 2017-CE-043-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 17, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Daher Aircraft Design, LLC (type certificate
previously held by Quest Aircraft Design, LLC), Model KODIAK 100
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer of fatigue
cracks on the nose landing gear (NLG) fork. The FAA is issuing this
AD to detect and prevent fatigue cracking of the NLG fork. The
unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in separation of
the NLG fork with consequent reduced control on landing. If the NLG
fork separates on an unimproved surface, the risk of the NLG digging
in and the airplane overturning on the ground increases.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection for Type of NLG Fork

    Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after August 17, 2020 (the
effective date of this AD), inspect the airplane to determine if an
NLG fork part number (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER> (type A) or an NLG fork P/N
100-410-7013 (type B) is installed. If you determine that an NLG
fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type B) is installed during the inspection,
no further action is required by this AD. If a review of the
maintenance records can identify the P/N NLG fork that is installed,
you may use a maintenance records review in lieu of inspecting the
airplane to determine if an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type A) or an
NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type B) is installed.

(h) Inspection of the NLG Fork for Cracks

    (1) If you determine that an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type A)
is installed during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, within 25 hours TIS after August 17, 2020 (the effective date of
this AD) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS, do
a fluorescent penetrant, dye penetrant, or open-hole eddy current
inspection of the NLG fork for cracks by following section 5.
Instructions in Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction FSI-147,
Revision 00, Release Date January 29, 2018.
    (2) If you find any cracks of the NLG fork during any inspection
required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight,
replace the NLG fork with an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type B).
Replacement of the NLG fork with an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type
B) terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs
(h)(1) and (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Inspection of the Shimmy Damper Bracket

    (1) If you have not replaced an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type
A) per the initial inspection and replacement requirements in
paragraph (h) of this AD, then within 25 hours TIS after August 17,
2020 (the effective date of this AD) and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 200 hours TIS (until the NLG fork is replaced with a P/N
100-410-7013 (type B) fork), inspect the shimmy damper bracket for
looseness, and inspect the shimmy damper system for damaged (loose,
leaking, corroded, or worn) components, by following pages 32_110
and 32_111, section 3252, Shimmy Damper, found in Chapter 32,
Landing Gear, of Quest Aircraft Company Kodiak 100 Maintenance
Manual, Revision No. 21, dated February 15, 2017.
    (2) If a loose shimmy damper bracket is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, rework the
shimmy damper bracket with interference-fit bolts by following Quest
Aircraft Field Service Instruction FSI-146, Revision 00, Release
Date April 18, 2017. Reworking the shimmy damper bracket with the
interference-fit bolts terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (3) If any other damaged components are found in the shimmy
damper system during any inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD, before further flight, replace the damaged components.

(j) Optional Terminating Action

    In lieu of the NLG fork and shimmy damper bracket inspections
required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (i)(1) of this AD, you may replace
the NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type A) with an NLG fork P/N 100-410-
7013 (type B). This replacement terminates the inspection
requirements of this AD, and no further actions are required.

(k) Restriction of NLG Fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (Type A) Installation

    Once an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type B) is installed on an
airplane, do not install an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type A). If
an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type B) is removed from the airplane
for any reason (for example, to install floats), you must reinstall
an NLG fork P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (type B) when operating with wheels.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle 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 local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may also
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Wade Sullivan,
Aerospace Engineer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA,

Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pages 32_110 and 32_111, section 3252, Shimmy Damper,
Chapter 32, Landing Gear, of Quest Aircraft Company Kodiak 100
Maintenance Manual, Revision No. 21, dated February 15, 2017.
    (ii) Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction FSI-146, Revision
00, Release Date April 18, 2017.

    Note 1 to paragraph (n)(2)(ii) of this AD:  The Release Date is
a pen-and-ink addition that appears only on the Revision Notice
transmitted with FSI-146.

    (iii) Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction FSI-147, Revision
00, Release Date January 29, 2018.

    Note 2 to paragraph (n)(2)(iii) of this AD:  The Release Date is
a pen-and-ink addition that appears only on the Revision Notice
transmitted with FSI-147.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Kodiak Aircraft Company, Inc., 1200 Turbine Drive, Sandpoint, Idaho
83864; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://Kodiak.aero/support.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 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_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 9, 2020.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-14886 Filed 7-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 11">
<link rel=File-List href="www.italladdsup.gov_files/filelist.xml">
<link rel=Edit-Time-Data href="www.italladdsup.gov_files/editdata.mso">

<title>It All Adds Up To Cleaner Air</title>

<link rel=Stylesheet type="text/css" media=all
href="http://www.italladdsup.gov/css/layout.css">
<link rel=Stylesheet type="text/css" media=all
href="http://www.italladdsup.gov/css/nav.css">
<link rel=Stylesheet type="text/css" media=all
href="http://www.italladdsup.gov/css/content.css">

<link href="http://www.italladdsup.gov/css/print.css" rel=stylesheet
type="text/css" media=print>
<meta name=description content="">

<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>Home<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>About It All Adds Up <o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>It All Adds Up
EXCHANGE <o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>Tools
for Organizations <o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>Resources
for Individuals <o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>FAQs
<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>AirShare <o:p></o:p>

<form action="/search/search.asp" method=get
enctype="application/x-www-form-urlencoded" id=search>

<INPUT TYPE="text" MAXLENGTH="45" SIZE="15" NAME="ferretthis"><INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="where" VALUE="0"><INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="onwhat" VALUE="all"><INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="andor" VALUE="allwords">

<INPUT TYPE="image" ACTION="/search/search.asp" SRC="http://www.italladdsup.gov/img/searchbutton.gif" METHOD="get"
id=searchbutton alt=Go><o:p></o:p>

</form>

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Success Stories<o:p></o:p>

Not too long ago,
central Ohio had a bit of a reputation...The six-county region had failed to
meet federal standards for ozone pollution. So, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission air quality staff
put their heads together and launched the Clean Air Challenge, an engaging
public action campaign that addresses mid-Ohio's air quality issues.

READ
MORE>><o:p></o:p>

Promote your clean air message <o:p></o:p>

...with <acronym>FHWA</acronym>’s
It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air—your
one-stop resource for free
commercial-quality marketing materials. Choose from dozens of ads and other
resources your organization can use to customize its air quality campaign.
Anyone can use this site to learn about the simple steps
people can take to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. <o:p></o:p>

You can put this
flash animation on your Web site—it’s easy. Find animations for every
season—there’s even a selection that works year-round anywhere in the
country. <o:p></o:p>

Did You Know?<o:p></o:p>

Replacing a clogged air filter can
improve your car’s gas mileage by as much as 10%—saving up to 55 gallons
of gasoline, or about three trips to the gas station, each year. <o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>CONTACT US  /  <o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>SITE MAP  /  <o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·
<![endif]>PRIVACY POLICY<o:p></o:p>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24268-24269]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0279; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-10]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Johnson City, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Johnson
City, TN, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning
System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving
Johnson City Medical Center Heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary
for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at the heliport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>.You must identify the Docket No. FAA-
2017-0279; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-10, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Johnson City
Medical Center Heliport, Johnson City, TN, to support IFR operations in
standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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-2017-0279
and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-10) and be submitted in triplicate to
the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons 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 Docket
No. FAA-2017-0279; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-10.'' 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 notice may be changed in light of
the comments received. 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 from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/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 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 between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Johnson
City, TN, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new
Copter RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Johnson
City Medical Center Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the heliport
would be established for IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016,
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Johnson City, TN [New]

Johnson City Medical Center Heliport, TN
    (Lat. 36[deg]18'26'' N., long. 82[deg]23'10'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Johnson City Medical Center Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 12, 2017.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2017-10428 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


2001 Annual PM2.5 Network Review for Michigan

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Air Quality Division

Prepared by Mary Ann Heindorf

June 27, 2001

Table of Contents

Item			Page

1.0
Purpose………………………………………………………
…..……………...1

2.0  Monitoring Objectives	1

3.0  Network Design & Deployment Status	1

	A.  PM2.5 FRM Network Design	2

		FRM Deployment Status	4

	B.  Continuous Network Design	4

		Continuous Monitor Deployment Status	4

	C.  Speciation Network Design	6

		Speciation Deployment Status	7

4.0  Proposed Changes	8

	A.  FRM Network Proposed Changes	8

	B.  Continuous Network Proposed Changes	9

	C.  Speciation Network Proposed Changes	9

	D.  PM10 Network Proposed Changes	9

5.0  Fine Particulate Data Summary	10

	A.  Data Completeness	10

	B.  Annual Averages	14

	C.  24-Hour Values	15

6.0  Quality Assurance/Quality Control	15

	A.  Co-located Sites	15	B.  Precision	18

	C.  PEP Audit Results	19

List of Figures

Figure #	Title									Page

Figure 1:	Current PM2.5 Monitoring Network 	2

Figure 2:	Current Continuous PM2.5 Monitoring Network	5

Figure 3:	Proposed PM2.5 Speciation Network	7

Figure 4:	Optimal PM2.5 Monitoring Network	8

Figure 5:	Optimal PM10 Monitoring Network	10

List of Tables

Table #	Title									Page

Table 1:	Michigan PM2.5 Network Summary FY 2001	3

Table 2:	Data Completeness and Quarterly Averages of Fine

	Particulate Material in Michigan	11

Table 3:	98th Percentile PM2.5 Values Averaged Over 3 Years	16

Table 4:	Locations of Co-Located PM2.5 Monitors	17

Table 5:	Percent Differences for Co-Located Measurements

	Greater than 6.0 ug/m3	18

Table 6:	Mass Comparisons Between R & P FRM and Met-One

	Speciation Monitors	19

Table 7:	PEP Audit Results 1999 - 2000	20

1.0  Purpose:

Annual Review Requirements

According to 40 CFR part 58.26 an annual state fine particulate (PM2.5)
air monitoring report must be submitted to the regional administrator by
July 1, that details the “proposed changes to the PM Monitoring
Network Description and be in accordance with the annual network review
requirements in § 58.25.  Specific details about the contents of the
annual report are found in previous versions of this report. Additional
details about network design are contained in the PM Monitoring Network
Description and the annual reviews from previous years.

2.0 Monitoring Objectives:

The objectives of the PM2.5 monitoring program in Michigan are to:

	(	Elucidate levels of fine particulate material at population-oriented
sites in major population centers in Michigan

	(	Provide real time concentrations of fine particulates in major
metropolitan areas

	(	Generate data to determine long term trends

	(	Measure PM2.5 levels being transported into Michigan

	(	Determine transnational transport

	(	Assess background levels of fine particulate material

	(	Collect data to assess compliance with 24-hour and annual NAAQS

	(	Investigate spatial and temporal trends; assess homogeneity

	(	Determine the impact of sources on areas expected to have the highest
levels of fine particulates

	(	Determine the chemical composition of fine particulate material

3.0  Network Design & Deployment Status

The total statewide particulate network consists of multiple components
which together provide a complete picture of the nature of particulate
material within the state.  The concentrations of PM2.5 measured over a
24-hour time period are determined using the federal reference method.
Shorter-term measurements, of either PM2.5 or PM10 are updated on an
hourly basis by sites in the continuous network.  Chemical composition
of fine particles is determined by the speciation network and by a more
limited chemical analysis of the filters generated by the federal
reference method (FRM) network. This section summarizes the design
components of the fine particulate network and deployment status but
omits a discussion of the PM10 network, which will be considered in the
annual NAAQS network review, scheduled for fall 2001.

All components of the monitoring networks within Region 5 are currently
subject to a regional review.  A “top down” approach is being taken
by EPA staff to assess impacts of removal of redundant monitors.
Simultaneously, a “bottom up” approach is being considered by state
and local staff within the region that will allow the design of an
optimal monitoring network, without restraints imposed by federal
monitoring requirements.  These network reviews are being conducted in
addition to those normally required by federal regulations. Michigan’s
2001 Annual PM2.5 Report merely acknowledges the existence of this
parallel effort.  Many elements of the “bottom up” and “top
down” reviews may not consider the Federal monitoring requirements and
are not included in this report. At this time, it is too premature to
integrate the results from the “bottom up” and “top down”
reviews. Only the preliminary “bottom up results are included in this
report.  Also, other elements such as possible reductions in sampling
frequency are suggested due to support from federal guidelines.

A.  PM2.5 FRM Network Design:

The Rupprecht and Pattashnick (R&P) sequential PM2.5 sampler has been
deployed at the 25 sites that make up Michigan’s PM2.5 FRM network,
shown in Figure 1.  The two tribal sites in Sault Ste. Marie are also
using R & P monitors.

No boundary changes are proposed for the monitoring planning areas.
Spatial averaging will not be used in Michigan.

FRM Deployment Status:

The FRM network is fully deployed, including the most recent additions
of the tribal sites in Sault Ste. Marie.  Monitoring site information is
summarized in Table 1.

Continuous Network Design:

The MDEQ and WCAQMD are in the process of deploying the continuous PM2.5
network shown in Figure 2.  The Allen Park population-oriented site in
Wayne County meets the requirement for continuous monitoring in MSAs
with population levels greater than 1 million population. A second
continuous PM2.5 monitoring site in Wayne County, which was planned for
Dearborn (a maximum impact site), was eliminated due to insufficient
funding.  The Flint continuous monitor is still pending.

A continuous monitor is planned by the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment in Sault Ste. Marie as part of a tribal monitoring project
at Lake Superior State University (261330901).  The expected deployment
date is around June 15, 2001.  The monitor will be operational through
2002.

All the PM2.5 continuous monitors currently deployed are Rupprecht and
Pattashnick (R&P) Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM)
instruments.  They are being operated at 50 degrees C without a naphion
dryer. If guidance is issued to support operation of the samplers at 30
degrees  with naphion dryers, modifications will be made to the network
contingent upon securing adequate levels of funding.

Continuous Monitor Deployment Status:

Six of the seven sites planned to be operated by state and local
agencies are currently operational. Currently, a continuous PM10 TEOM is
operating at Dearborn. The MDEQ has one additional TEOM which is
awaiting deployment to the Flint site. Another continuous site was
planned for either Holland or Muskegon to provide supplementary
information about levels of fine particulate in disjoint areas of the
Grand Rapids/Muskegon/Holland MSA.  However, given the relatively
homogeneous nature of the PM2.5 levels generated by the FRM network
within the Grand Rapids MSA, the MDEQ is removing this second site from
the continuous network in the Grand Rapids MSA.

The date when the Flint continuous PM2.5 monitor may become operational
is uncertain. The current goal is to start up the monitor by 1/1/02.

Speciation Network Design:

The primary monitoring objective of Michigan’s speciation network is
to provide data that will ultimately safe guard populations in the
state. Most of the sites shown in Figure 3 are population oriented
stations that will provide information to support the development of
attainment strategies.  Speciation data from the monitors in Kalamazoo,
Ypsilanti and Detroit will allow the creation of attainment strategies
for these areas not likely to meet the annual standard. A speciation
site is also planned for Grand Rapids, a densely populated area very
close to the annual standard. . The figure also reflects changes in
Michigan’s network, that were the result of regional network design
activities.

A speciation monitor is planned to start monitoring on 1/1/02 at
Houghton Lake to provide background information for Regional visibility
modeling.   Sites to address transport and more rural concentrations of
speciated PM2.5 are included at Luna Pier and Holland.

The Ypsilanti site is also located in an area with elevated asthma
levels. Operation of this site is a cooperative venture between MDEQ and
the Washtenaw County Health Department.   The data will assist Washtenaw
County in their investigation of elevated asthma cases in Ypsilanti.

Allen Park is the trend site for the Detroit MSA, due to the
population-oriented nature of the site.  It has been operational since
January 1, 2001. A Met-One single event monitor was deployed at the
trend site.

To supplement the Detroit Pilot Project database, 2 speciation monitors
have temporarily been deployed at E. 7 Mile (261630019) and at the
intersection of 696, the Lodge Freeway and Telegraph Road (261250010).
Speciated data at these two sites will allow comparisons to be made
between levels of elemental and organic carbon and emissions from motor
vehicles and diesel exhaust, as well as provide comparisons between data
collected in California with other areas.  After the Pilot Project is
over, these two monitors will be moved to Dearborn and to another
population oriented site outside of the Detroit Metro area.  Dearborn is
proposed as a population-oriented maximum impact site due to the
plethora of facilities whose emissions impact on the station.  Both of
these monitors are single event Met-One models.

A tribal speciation monitor will be deployed at Sault Ste. Marie (Lake
Superior University, 260330901) to address concerns about emissions from
Algoma Steel in Ontario, Canada.  Two IMPROVE sites at Seney Wildlife
Refuge (26153xxxx) and Eagle Harbor (the surrogate site for Isle Royale,
26083xxxx)  became operational during December, 2000.

No co-located speciation sites are planned in Michigan.

Speciation Monitor Deployment Status:

TREND Site:

The trend site at Allen Park (261630001) became operational January 1,
2001.

IMPROVE Network

Both IMPROVE sites at Seney and at Eagle Harbor, which is a surrogate
for Isle Royale, became operational during December, 2000.

Tribal Monitors:

The Sault Ste. Marie monitor became operational during June 2001.

May 2002

Upon completion of the Detroit Pilot Study in April 2002, two speciation
monitors will become available for deployment at Luna Pier and Dearborn.

4.0 Proposed Changes

The following minimal changes are proposed to the fine particulate
networks.

FRM Network Proposed Changes:

Both the bottom up and top down network reviews may impact upon the
design of the FRM PM2.5 network.  Figure 4 shows the results of the
bottom up network review, which is included here as a preliminary
proposal of modifications to the network.

As a result of possible changes in the network, the proposed NAMS sites
are also modified.  Proposed NAMS stations remain in the major urban
centers of the state that include: Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Oak
Park, Ann Arbor and Saginaw OR Bay City.  The number of NAMS within
Detroit is reduced to Allen Park, to represent the urban area and
Livonia, to represent the more suburban community monitoring zone.

The following changes in sampling frequency for the FRM network are
proposed.

All sites sampling every day will reduce the sampling frequency to once
every 3 days beginning January 1, 2002.

All sites sampling on a once every three day schedule will reduce their
frequency to once every 6 days beginning January 1, 2002.

All co-located precision monitors will continue to sample once every 12
days.

Continuous Network Proposed Changes:

The TEOM at either Holland or Muskegon will not be deployed because the
FRM PM2.5 measurements are homogeneous throughout the Grand
Rapids/Muskegon/Holland MSA.  There is an existing TEOM at the Grand
Rapids station.

A PM2.5 TEOM may be deployed, eventually,  at Port Huron, contingent
upon additional funding.

Speciation Network Proposed Changes:

Figure 3 illustrates the results form the regional PM2.5 speciation
network design efforts.  Michigan will continue to participate in the
Regional efforts.

Michigan currently has 3 speciation monitors running, all in the Detroit
MSA.  The trend site is located at Allen Park. Two special purpose
monitors are located at E. 7 Mile and 696.  A 4th monitor will become
operational at the rural Houghton Lake site on 1/1/02.  Purchasing and
deploying instrumentation for the remaining (5) sites is delayed pending
the results of continuous speciation monitor study taking place in
Chicago.

PM10 Network Proposed Changes:

Figure 5 presents the results from the bottom up PM10 review.
Historically, Dearborn has had the highest PM10 levels in Michigan, and
hence, the site should be retained but at the reduced sampling
frequency. A co-located PM10 monitor will continue to be operated at
Dearborn to supply precision measurements.  We are proposing to convert
the PM10 TEOM into a PM2.5 TEOM, due to relative magnitude of PM2.5.
The South West High School site is retained as a second NAMS station in
Detroit.

Fine Particulate Data Summary

The following section summarizes PM2.5 values and the degree of data
capture by for each monitor since its start up date.  Only the first
quarter data for 2001 is available at this time.

Data Completeness

Table 2 illustrates the data capture by monitoring site. The
calculations in the table are limited to each individual monitor; no
data substitution to correct for missing data has been performed.

All State and Local monitoring stations achieved at least 80% data
capture for the first quarter 2001.  Less than 75% complete data was
captured during 2000 at Traverse City during the fourth quarter when the
filters were destroyed. The incomplete data collected at Oak Park during
the third quarter was due to

confusion about the correct dates various filters actually sampled.

The Ann Arbor monitor collected data that was less than 75% complete
because the site was temporarily closed from March 25, 2000 through May
3, 2000 while the roof was reshingled and asphalt was applied to the
parking lot.  These renovations required either removal of the monitor,
which was located on the roof, or caused restricted access to the
building.

The Wyandotte monitor has experienced poor data collection due to power
supply problems.  Originally, the monitor was connected to the ground
fault interrupter by a 25 foot long extension cord, which created
electrical problems. On March 1, 2000, underground wiring and conduit
was added to the site, resolving the problem.

Site renovations occurred at the Ypsilanti site when a fence was
relocated to allow the addition of a trailer during January 2000.

The monitor at Port Huron experienced temperature calibration problems
and was repaired during the first quarter.

Annual Averages

The data in Table 2 show that most of the sites in Southeast Michigan
had a 3-year annual average greater than 15 ug/m3, using only the first
quarter data to represent 2001. Because the first quarter tends to be
elevated at most sites in Michigan, this creates a positive bias in the
estimation of the three year annual averages for Grand Rapids and
Kalamazoo.  Although the average is greater than 15 ug/m3, after 3 other
quarters of data are collected, the averages will most likely drop below
15, as shown by the trends from 1999 and 2000. The three year average
calculated for Luna Pier is 14.7 ug/m3 and is probably biased low, due
to the limited number of samples (5) collected during 1999. After three
years of data are collected, Luna Pier may exceed the standard, based on
a single complete year of data that has been collected so far.

Three sites, Oak Park, Ypsilanti, E. 7 Mile had annual averages between
14 and 14.9. ug/m3.  The averages at most of the remaining sites were
within 2 ug/m3 of 15 ug/m3.

During the first quarter of 2001, as in every year PM2.5 has been
measured, all sites experienced elevated fine particulate levels, with
the statewide average reaching 15.47 ug/m3. During the same time
interval in 2000, the average equaled 16.30 ug/m3. Sites in Southeast
Michigan continue to be the highest in the state.  The highest first
quarter average during 2001 was measured in Wyandotte which reached 21.2
ug/m3.  Allen Park located close by, reached 20.41 ug/m3.  Dearborn,
further upwind from this area experienced elevated levels that reached
20.95 ug/m3 in Allen Park and 19.3 ug/m3 in Wyandotte.  The rural,
upwind site in Luna Pier, which was setup to measure concentrations
coming into Detroit, averaged 16.9 ug/m3 during the first quarter.

Other metropolitan areas in Michigan also experienced first quarter
averages that exceeded 15 ug/m3.  Both Flint and Lansing reached an
average of 15.3 ug/m3.  Grand Rapids was slightly higher with an average
of 16.3 ug/m3.  Nearby, Jenison equaled 17.0 ug/m3.  Kalamazoo was
higher with an average of 19.3 ug/m3.  Yet, sites near the Michigan
lakeshore measured average particulate values less than 14 ug/m3.

The data show that the annual average is the controlling form of the
standard in Michigan.  None of the annual values shown in Table 2 have
undergone spatial averaging because Michigan is not exercising that
option.

24-Hour Values

The 98th percentile values of the 24-hour measurements are shown in
Table 3.  As shown by the table, none of the sites have a 98th
percentile value greater than 65 ug/m3, nor are any sites within 80% of
this value.  However, the three year average for five of the sites, and
one co-located monitor in Southeast Michigan, are within 60% of 65 ug/m3
and have a medium likelihood of exceeding a 24-hour standard if it were
set at this level.  The remaining 14 sites are less than  60% of 65
ug/m3, and hence have little likelihood of exceeding a standard set at
this level.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Specific protocols regarding quality assurance, laboratory analysis
sample handling, collection, transport, laboratory sample identification
and archive procedures are covered in the Quality Assurance Project Plan
for the PM2.5 Program in Michigan.  The following section describes the
locations that contain duplicate monitors and the precision results.

Co-Located Sites

Table 4 lists the sites that have duplicate R&P sequential monitors. The
co-located monitors that were previously located in Saginaw and Muskegon
were moved to Ypsilanti and Port Huron during January 2001.  A better
assessment of monitor precision can be obtained if a greater proportion
of the duplicate values are above 6 ug/m3.  The PM2.5 concentrations at
Saginaw and Muskegon are relatively low so the co-located monitors were
moved to locations with higher levels. This will provide a better
estimate of precision within the network. As shown by the table, the
portion of the network operated by the MDEQ has 27.8% co-located sites
and WCAQMD has 14.3% co-located sites.  In the original network design,
an additional monitor was planned for the Linwood site in Wayne County,
which would have made the percent co-location equal to 28.5%, but the
allocation was cut.  If a co-located monitor in the MDEQ network were
shifted to Wayne County, the

percent co-location for MDEQ would drop to 22.2% and Wayne County’s
percent would rise to 28.9%.

Precision

Table 5 shows the percent difference between the co-located pairs of FRM
monitors from 1999 through the first quarter of 2001 for those data
points with a concentration greater than 6.0 ug/m3. During 1999, 25
pairs of values  had a percent difference greater than |10|. There was a
marked improvement in 2000, when the number of occasions were reduced to
16.

As shown in Table 6, comparisons are made between the FRM mass
measurements and the new speciation monitors, using the rather limited
database generated by the Met One speciation instruments. The
measurements are not very comparable, with the Met-One tending to be
higher than the R&P.

PEP Audit Results

The audit results received from USEPA, as of June 8, 2000, are shown in
Tables 7 and 8 for MDEQ and Wayne County respectively.

  The actual name is Washtenaw County Department of Environment &
Infrastructure Services, Environmental Health Division.

2001 PM2.5 Annual Report for Michigan

 PAGE   vi

 PAGE   vi

2001 PM2.5 Annual Report for Michigan

 PAGE   iii

2001 PM2.5 Annual Report for Michigan

 PAGE   17

 PAGE   20


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12281]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14187-000, 14199-000]

 Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIV; FFP Project 58, LLC; Notice
Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit Applications

    On February 22, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine
priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical
filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of
the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop,
conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the
region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as
the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as
follows:
    1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIV, Project No. 14187-000.
    2. FFP Project 58, LLC, Project No. 14199-000.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4801 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43508-43509]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0627; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-29]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Granby, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace, extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Granby-Grand County Airport.
This action would ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0627; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-29, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
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 establish Class E airspace at Granby-Grand County Airport,
Granby, CO, to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

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 and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0627;
Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-29''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/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, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace,
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Granby-Grand
County Airport. This area is designed to contain IFR departures to
1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500
feet above the surface. This airspace area would be described as
follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.2 miles north and
1.6 miles south of the 110[deg] bearing from the airport, extending
from the 3.5-mile radius to 4.7 miles east of the airport, and within
2.1 miles north and 2.4 miles south of the 276[deg] bearing from the
airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 4.3 miles west of the
Granby-Grand County Airport.
    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Granby, CO [New]

Granby-Grand County Airport, CO
    (lat. 40[deg]05'24'' N, long. 105[deg]55'00'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.2 miles north
and 1.6 miles south of the 110[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 4.7 miles east of the airport,
and within 2.1 miles north and 2.4 miles south of the 276[deg]
bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 4.3
miles west of the Granby-Grand County Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 13, 2020.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-15477 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P